A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

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.

Good grief.

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/

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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).

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.

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).

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:

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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) )

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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, 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.

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?

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:

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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:

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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:

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.

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).

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.

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:

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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:

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:

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.

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:

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?

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"?

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:

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.

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)

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:

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?

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.

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)

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.

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

Haha.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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 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?

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 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.

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

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.

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

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

I have no clue what that's about.

Episode 14 hasn't been posted, but as I understand it, that was just a silly episode for Cinco de Mayo where the participants goofed around, sang silly songs, and didn't discuss any serious issues.

Episode 15 has been posted, and I'm listening to it now.

Not that I'll be able to detect that anything was censored from it, since I wasn't there during the recording session. I had hoped to listen in to the planned discussion on ethics, but they never got to it before time ran out. Due to technical problems with the Skype bridge, the panelists switched to a conventional Skype conference, so there was no listening-only option anyway during that recording session.

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

OM just made some very helpful edits to this article I'm working on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=211882457

and I appreciate it.

As near as I can tell, Episdoe 15 of WP:NTWW was posted without redaction.

There was a heated discussion toward the end, regarding some murky issue involving admins on an IRC channel. I didn't quite grok the issue, partly because the panelists were circumspect about disclosing enough details to understand what they were getting so exercised about.

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.

I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how it goes, given my experiences with attempting to reason with Filll in particular.

I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how it goes, given my experiences with attempting to reason with Filll in particular.

Reasoning with Filll is an exercise in exasperation.

I'm not even sure Socrates himself could get Filll to arrive at valid conclusions grounded in evidence and reasoning.

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

I have no clue what that's about.

Apparently there was some discussion about Hersfold blocking an IP where Angela and Tim Starlng were editing from.

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

I have no clue what that's about.

Apparently there was some discussion about Hersfold blocking an IP where Angela and Tim Starlng were editing from.

Ah, it was that part of the Skypecast. I had guessed it was a different part (toward the end).

Yes, Angela and Tim were in a hotel and (for a variety of reasons) decided to do some editing without logging in. Their IP edits were perceived as improper by a couple of admins, who indef blocked the hotel's IP.

Yes, Angela and Tim were in a hotel and (for a variety of reasons) decided to do some editing without logging in. Their IP edits were perceived as improper by a couple of admins, who indef blocked the hotel's IP.

Heh. But we know that WP is no respector of persons. It's only your ideas that count, even if you're just a 15 year-old on an IP. So it really shouldn't matter if we didn't know it was Tim and Angela. Should it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) I mean, it's not like the place believes in things being authority-driven, right?

Oh, I forgot about asskissing-derived authority. I was thinking of the old fashioned kind, which derives from knowing more about the subject at hand....

Today, Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was deleted, despite the professor Dr. Filll's Extremely strong KEEP.

Today, Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was deleted, despite the professor Dr. Filll's Extremely strong KEEP.

It was? I missed that entirely.

User Name: Filll


Role: Academic
Languages: English, French
Subject Area: Physics
Research Area: mathematical physics
Publications at Conferences:
Publications in Journals:
Publications' Web Site:
Academic Qualification: Professor Dr. in one or more research areas
Qualification Approved: False
About me: I am new here and I want to learn about this place.
City: Washington DC
Country: USA
University: UC

Is UC == University of California? If so, which campus?

Does anyone know his actual academic background?

Wow, that deletion debate highlights the extent to which that boneheaded WikiClique on Intelligent Design were rabid POV pushers who had taken leave of their senses.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

The next thing that has to happen is to revise this paragraph...

Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.[21][22] Picard sees DNA as too complex to have originated through "purely random processes" and believes that it shows "the mark of intervention," and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are."[20] Though some of her beliefs are similar, Picard has expressed reservations about the intelligent design movement, saying that it deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She argues that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice," she said.[20]

The paragraph should be changed to read as follows...

Picard is one of 103 scientists and academics who signed an untitled statement circulated in academia in 2001, which the Discovery Institute subsequently promoted as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."[21][22] Picard sees DNA as too complex to have originated through "purely random processes" and believes that it shows "the mark of intervention," and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are."[20] Picard says that intelligent design deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She observes that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice," she said.[20]

I can provide the rationale to anyone here who requests it.

By the way, "the media" primarily refers to WP, as edited by the ethically challenged WikiClique on Intelligent Design.

Also, the comparable paragraph in the James Tour BLP also needs to be revised. And there is no need for that ridiculous and misleading heading, either.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

User Name: Filll


Role: Academic
Languages: English, French
Subject Area: Physics
Research Area: mathematical physics
Publications at Conferences:
Publications in Journals:
Publications' Web Site:
Academic Qualification: Professor Dr. in one or more research areas
Qualification Approved: False
About me: I am new here and I want to learn about this place.
City: Washington DC
Country: USA
University: UC

Is UC == University of California? If so, which campus?

Does anyone know his actual academic background?

Who knows what he means by UC? It could be University of Chicago, Colorado, Cincinnati, California, University College or a dozen others.

His current about me page says he's a dual U.S./Canadian citizen, but not much else, The previous version said -

I know a little. I am a research scientist. I have a few graduate degrees. I have a background in physics and mathematics and mathematical physics. I am from Canada originally and live outside of Washington DC. I speak a little English and even less French.

So I think he's saying English and French are not his mother tongue, and I'm guessing he's a Newfie judging by the articles he's edited.

I am not too enthusiastic about letting people attack science. I have fairly strong religious views but I do not advertise them; I am not an atheist, although I am often accused of being one.

Hrmmm...

He attacks scientists, using unscientific (and also unethical) methods.

I'd be interested in comparing his religious views to those of Picard.

I am not too enthusiastic about letting people attack science. I have fairly strong religious views but I do not advertise them; I am not an atheist, although I am often accused of being one.

Hrmmm...

He attacks scientists, using unscientific (and also unethical) methods.

I'd be interested in comparing his religious views to those of Picard.

Well I hope they're not as bizarre as Picard's.

What a load of crap.

What a load of crap.

Well, if that's your heartfelt belief, Kato, who am I to deny you the ecstasy of your religious convictions?

Earlier today, on WP:AN#Moulton_.28un.29ban, MastCell wrote:

Incidentally, as the admin who protected Moulton's talk page, I'm going to unprotect it so that he can post directly there rather than having to email or post offsite to participate. MastCell Talk 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So I populated my talk page with appropriate content.

And then Jim Schuler, one of the WikiCliquers on ID, paid a visit...

So, you wander over to WR, talk shit, promote shit, encourage others to spread shit, come back from WR, without admitting that your view of NPOV might've been shity and might've caused a shitload of nonsense, and then, you beg to be allowed back to spread more shit? No shit, really. Nah. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the same Jim Schuler who sent me E-Mail with this greeting...

Barry, go take your fucking meds. Haldol might be good.

Previously, MastCell protected my talk page to put a stop to that kind of trolling.

Well I hope they're not as bizarre as Picard's.

What a load of crap.

What would you have said were Ms. Picard a Muslim?

And then Jim Schuler, one of the WikiCliquers on ID, paid a visit...

Hey, I wonder who holds the record for the most uses of the word "shit" per-sentence in a Wikipedia talk page entry? Do we have some figures on that...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/getlost.gif)

Also, do intimidation tactics have even the slightest chance of working on you, Moulton? I've been getting the impression that you actually like it when they do that. It certainly makes it easier to see where they're a-comin' from.

What would you have said were Ms. Picard a Muslim?

Perhaps he might have said, "I hope they're not as غريب as Picard's"?

Also, do intimidation tactics have even the slightest chance of working on you, Moulton?

Anankastic conditionals rarely work on me.

One time, on a forum a few years ago, I responded, "I'll take OR ELSE for twenty Quatloos, Alex."

I've been getting the impression that you actually like it when they do that. It certainly makes it easier to see where they're a-comin' from.

It's not that I like it. But you're right about them defining themselves by their behaviors. What I like to see is improvement in behavior over time. Alas, Jim seems to be regressing toward the meanie.

Here's the part I don't get... Jim disclosed in the talk pages on Picard's bio that his daughter has Autism. And Picard is a leading researcher developing innovative technologies to help people with Autism Spectrum Disorders. So why would he be so quick to denigrate her? It makes no sense.

Don't worry the truth will out now, as Guy takes up the cause.

his whining and special pleading are simply offensive to the many users he attacked using that and his numerous sockpuppet accounts.

Hmm, Moulton, now the famous sockpuppeteer. Must be true, Guy is never wrong.

Well, let's change that to Guy will never admit he was wrong.

Glad you are keeping up, Guy. Didn't you just meat-puppet for me?

What is JzG's evidence and reasoning that I am (or am not) "using numerous sockpuppet accounts"?

What is JzG's evidence and reasoning that I am (or am not) "using numerous sockpuppet accounts"?

You see Moulton, your fundamental flaw in all your discussions is that you hope that people who do things have rational reasons for doing them.

While you could analyse Guy as to what motivates him to come up with his decisions, I doubt very much whether he consciously thinks things through - he sees things and he "knows".

Well I hope they're not as bizarre as Picard's.

What a load of crap.

What would you have said were Ms. Picard a Muslim?

If they were a convert like the above, quite probably. If they were brought up Muslim, it depends. But I have said similar things to cultural Muslims over the years, and said something similar only yesterday to a Muslim friend when I was helping her out with a spot of gardening. I'm not Muslim, but I live among Muslims. We have all kinds of banter about all kinds of things. In fact, I don't come across many Christians these days. Probably more on this site than in real life. I find all of these ideas to be a bit mad. But having a heavy dose of Catholicism as a child, I can understand and empathize with the cultural aspects. When people start justifying irrational beliefs as adults out of the blue, there isn't much excuse. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

When people start justifying irrational beliefs as adults out of the blue, there isn't much excuse. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Kato, it would be helpful if you would pick out one or two of the putatively irrational beliefs and indicate how or why you reckon them to be irrational.

While you could analyse Guy as to what motivates him to come up with his decisions, I doubt very much whether he consciously thinks things through — he sees things and he "knows".

How typical would you say that characteristic is of Wikipedians in general?

Do you consider that characteristic to fall short of best practices?

While you could analyse Guy as to what motivates him to come up with his decisions, I doubt very much whether he consciously thinks things through — he sees things and he "knows".

How typical would you say that characteristic is of Wikipedians in general?

Do you consider that characteristic to fall short of best practices?

I think that describes the thought processes of a vast majority of the human race. The stupid thing about Wikipedia is not that there are a few irrational beings screwing it up, it is the failure to recognise that just about every Wikipedian is a human being with a full set of human foibles, and the kidology that somehow Wikipedianism transcends the human spirit drags it down into the stupid illogicalities of everyday Wikipedian behaviour.

It is like a recent exchange I had on Wikipedia when a young sprog had the temerity to suggest that my criticisms of Wikipedia must be false because policy said that the things I claimed to be the case were against policy, therefore could not be true.

As another example, everyone who evaluates the ID Crowd rationally should come to the conclusion that they are an abusive crowd. Yet is seems, through some perverse Wikipedian logic that Wikipedians are able to rationalise that small group's abusive activities as acceptable.

Best practices need to recognise that Wikipedians are imperfect human beings and policies and processes need to recognise that it is run by a bunch of irrational amateurs, rather than the pretence of high minded perfection. I guess that means no to your second point.

I guess that means no to your second point.

Bummer. I am so chagrined.

What is JzG's evidence and reasoning that I am (or am not) "using numerous sockpuppet accounts"?

Since even Checkusers often don't have a clue about who's a sockpuppet of whom, how can JzG do better?

What is JzG's evidence and reasoning that I am (or am not) "using numerous sockpuppet accounts"?

Since even Checkusers often don't have a clue about who's a sockpuppet of whom, how can JzG do better?

Well, I suppose he can examine the public record and discover that there has never been even a hint of a suspicion that I've ever registered an alternate account.

Sam Korn is a former member of ArbCom who posted on WP:AN an open invitation to me to send him E-Mail presenting my case.

After a few rounds of E-Mail, Sam Korn has posted his analysis and opinion of the case.

His view is that the RfC and its aftermath were flawed:

What it important here is that the action taken was not wholly appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right".

This is a major step towards recognizing and rectifying the problem as I perceived it.

I would also like to acknowledge the significant roles played by Lar and GRBerry in the WP:AN discussions, and the instrumental role that PrivateMusings played in bringing the issues to wider public awareness through the medium of the NTWW Skypecasts.

Sam Korn is a former member of ArbCom who posted on WP:AN an open invitation to me to send him E-Mail presenting my case.

After a few rounds of E-Mail, Sam Korn has posted his analysis and opinion of the case.

His view is that the RfC and its aftermath were flawed:

What it important here is that the action taken was not wholly appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right".

This is a major step towards recognizing and rectifying the problem as I perceived it.

I would also like to acknowledge the significant roles played by Lar and GRBerry in the WP:AN discussions, and the instrumental role that PrivateMusings played in bringing the issues to wider public awareness through the medium of the NTWW Skypecasts.

You're welcome, I guess, but I haven't changed my basic view, that unless you're willing to edit within WP guidelines, an unblock would be symbolic, since you would be rapidly reblocked.

I do think Sam Korn did a fine piece of analysis.

An open letter to PlatanusOccidentalis...

Hi PlatanusOccidentalis,

Regarding that controversial edit you made to the Picard bio, essentially implementing the proposed edit that I had posted on WR upthread here, I'm wondering if you independently examined the rationale, per WP:RS and WP:V, to establish the proper basis for that proposed edit.

Elsewhere (primarily in private Skype chat) I have walked several others through the examination of the WP:RS and WP:V sources to arrive at that edit without violating WP:NOR (and to refute the prevailing wording that Filll reinstated).

I've offered to Sam Korn to walk anyone else whom he cares to nominate through the exercise to properly ground that proposed edit.

If you have independently done the same exercise, I imagine that would be even more helpful to him.

Regards,

Moulton / Barry

P.S. You are at liberty to disclose, share, or paraphrase this E-Mail.

Media Ethics: Into the pot, already boiling

What Is the Name Of This Problem?

Monday, May 19, 2008

Wikipedia has begun to recognize that it has a huge problem with biographies of living people.

But that's not what I want to talk about in this post.

What I want to talk about today is akin to a tiny pea under a pile of mattresses.

But it's an annoying pea that illustrates the subtlety of reckoning ethics in online media.

For the past ten months, I have sought, with notable lack of success, to raise to the attention of editors on Wikipedia a seemingly insignificant error that has caused a number of people considerable grief.

The problem arises because the editors of several related articles on Wikipedia insisted on incorrectly labeling a 2001 document that had become the centerpiece of a national controversy.

There is an article entitled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" which describes a 2-sentence petition and a sponsoring web site promoting it. The problem is that the name attached to the petition and the purposes to which it has been put by its sponsor have varied and evolved since the document first was circulated in academia back in 2001. Among the signatories to this petition, the first 100 are said to be the most notable and most prominent scientists and academics. They are the ones who had signed the petition in question in 2001, prior to its first known publication.

Let's take a close look at the article in Wikipedia. First look at the main section, Statement, just below the article table of contents. Note that the text of the statement is in a pink box, with the italicized title outside the box. So far, so good. Below the pink box with the 32-word statement, the article continues, "The statement, and its title, refer to ..." Notice how the authors of this article have distinguished the 32-word statement from the 5-word title. In a minute you'll discover why. But first look at the balance of that section carefully, with special attention to the degree of ambiguity as to what it is that the petition is a "dissent from." Notice the article is now referring to "the petition" which is ambiguous, because we don't know if 'petition' refers just to the 32-word statement, or to the 32-word statement plus the 5-word title as a package.

Now we come to the next section, Discovery Institute usage, which talks about a "list of names" that the Discovery Institute has published in various paid advertisements, beginning in 2001.

Now it's time to drill down to the primary sources, which are references 19 and 20 in the current version of the article. Reference 19 goes to a press release from the Discovery Institute that has some bylined text followed by a bold-faced title, an italicized 32-word statement in quotes, and then a list of about 100 signatories. Reference 20 goes to a facsimile of the printed ad, as it appeared in the NY Times and other publications around September/October 2001. This is the best source. Look at it carefully.

It is a newspaper ad with a headline, two paragraphs of advertising copy and then a gray box with a 32-word statement in quotes, surrounded by the same list of about 100 names.

Now, here is the Socratic part, dear reader:

1. What is the headline of the advertisement?
   
2. What is the title of the statement inside the gray box? (Is there one?)
   
3. If you were a journalist, what would be your evidence and reasoning to support the notion that those 100 scientists put their signature to a document that contained both a 5-word title and a 32-word statement?

Is it journalistically accurate and ethical to say that those 100 scientists put their names to a petition bearing the title, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"?

See also the cited analysis by Skip Evans, published by the NCSE shortly after the ad first appeared, which raises similar concerns about how the Discovery Institute had reframed and recontextualized the 32-word statement by framing it with a headline and two paragraphs of advertising copy suggesting how they'd like the public to interpret it.

Until last week, Wikipedia had prominently tagged the biographies of any of those scientists as "Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". That category tag has since been removed from Wikipedia, although it remains as a list, which includes those 100 scientists and academics who did not sign a petition bearing that name.

What is JzG's evidence and reasoning that I am (or am not) "using numerous sockpuppet accounts"?

Since even Checkusers often don't have a clue about who's a sockpuppet of whom, how can JzG do better?

Well, I suppose he can examine the public record and discover that there has never been even a hint of a suspicion that I've ever registered an alternate account.

Yeah, but you do have thousands of meatpuppets...

...where "meatpuppet" is defined as "anyone who makes an edit you might agree with after the fact"...

...and in other news, if you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Media Ethics: Into the pot, already boiling

What Is the Name Of This Problem?

Monday, May 19, 2008

Moulton: thank you for clearly stating the issue. Keep this quality of post up and your concerns will be clearly understood.

Yeah, but you do have thousands of meatpuppets...

Back in the early 90s, when I was championing children's educational networking via an innovative MUD called MicroMuse, my colleagues at BBN Systems and Technologies used to joke that I had become a cult leader with dozens of youthful acolytes who had flocked to MicroMuse to experience the joys of Model-Based Reasoning.

I seem to have improved my charisma a notch. Now instead of a few dozen adolescent acolytes on MicroMuse, I am graced with thousands of worshipful meatpuppets on Wikipedia.

I am humbled beyond words.

Media Ethics: Into the pot, already boiling

What Is the Name Of This Problem?

Monday, May 19, 2008

Moulton: thank you for clearly stating the issue. Keep this quality of post up and your concerns will be clearly understood.

I had made the same argument, albeit less Socratically, in the talk pages of the Picard bio back on August 23. Notice how Filll supplied to me the very same primary sources in that discussion.

Can you see how exasperating it was, dealing with Hrafn, Filll, and Ornis in that early colloquy on this very issue?

Can you see how exasperating it was, dealing with Hrafn, Filll, and Ornis in that early colloquy on this very issue?

Certainly, and still, today, the argument is being cast that there is nothing wrong in their obvious manipulation of the story. What I had not picked up till now was that their main sourcing was an advert rather than journalistic content.

In fact, I now understand why OrangeMarlin, Jim Schuler and so on were so sensitive about attempted changes to the sourcing policy as stated in WP:Verifiability where various editors at times have agreed that the bald statement that mainstream newspapers are reliable sources is entirely inappropriate, whereas others have sort to ensure that is qualified.

The ID Crowd paranoia extends to the assumption that if someone is independently seeking to change policy, that in fact these people are in league with the devil and are simply seeking to change policy to allow creationists to defeat their arguments which they known in their hearts are built on the sand of their delusional beliefs.

I had pointed out, time and again, that they had no reliable source to assert that those first 100 scientists (who included Tour, Skell, Picard, and even Berlinski) were either dissenters from Darwinism or anti-evolution or supporters of ID. There simply wasn't a shred of evidence anywhere (including on the DI's own carefully spun PR pages) to support the view that those editors stubbornly insisted were facts on the ground. For the life of me, I couldn't fathom what purpose could be served by including such absurdly false and defamatory content in those BLPs and compounding it by making it the dominant WP:Coatrack content in violation of WP:NPOV (which would have included the analysis by Skip Evans of the NCSE, who was Filll's hero in the fight against the DI's misleading presentation of the petition and its interpretation). To my mind, they were in willful disregard of the patently evident truth, as demonstrated by a sober and objective examination of their own sources.

Ken Chang might well have thought that the 2006 website, DissentFromDarwin.Org was "anti-evolution" (even though the phrase never appears on the DI's website and nowhere in the text of his own NYT article). But even so, his personal opinion (as expressed in that private E-Mail) hardly elevates that personal point of view to an uncontestable {fact}. Picard posted on WP her contrary view that the controversial headline was skewed that way "to sell more newspapers". Chang never said who wrote the headline for that article. (Very likely he wouldn't have remembered after a year and a half.)

The definitive primary source was the facsimile of the original anti-PBS ad, which exhibits the 32-word statement in a grey box with 100 names, below a headline and advertising copy that were clearly crafted expressly for that ad.

Filll's position that it was up to each of those 100 scientists to publicly refute the misrepresentations of Wikipedia was absurd. And even when several of the aggrieved scientists did that, the controlling editors still left the misbegotten content in the articles and BLPs.

Good grief.

Dave Souza on WP:AN...

Oppose unblocking On the basis that Sam's proposal is "unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively"," then I'm willing so see it would be possible to consider unblocking on these conditions with close and effective monitoring. Moulton is not disinterested about policy, he appears passionately committed to changing BLP so that information from reputable sources is overridden by personal anecdote and speculation about improbable potential harm. Expect extended and tendentious discussions in that area, and care should be taken to ensure that these views do not unduly override community consensus. ... dave souza, talk 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Amended after reading User:Filll/Moultonunblock which refreshed my memory. Any unblocking is likely to lead to grief as well as being an enormous waste of time . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Grief for whom?

Grief for responsible Wikipedians of good will?

Or grief for the often mean-spirited and hard-hearted editors in the WikiClique on ID?

How much more time will have to be consumed before they learn not to WP:BITE the newbies and academics who come to Wikipedia in good faith to help build a better, more reliable, more accurate, and higher quality encyclopedia?

Media Ethics: Into the pot, already boiling

What Is the Name Of This Problem?

Monday, May 19, 2008

Wikipedia has begun to recognize that it has a huge problem with biographies of living people.

But that's not what I want to talk about in this post.

What I want to talk about today is akin to a tiny pea under a pile of mattresses.

But it's an annoying pea that illustrates the subtlety of reckoning ethics in online media.

For the past ten months, I have sought, with notable lack of success, to raise to the attention of editors on Wikipedia a seemingly insignificant error that has caused a number of people considerable grief.

The problem arises because the editors of several related articles on Wikipedia insisted on incorrectly labeling a 2001 document that had become the centerpiece of a national controversy.

There is an article entitled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" which describes a 2-sentence petition and a sponsoring web site promoting it. The problem is that the name attached to the petition and the purposes to which it has been put by its sponsor have varied and evolved since the document first was circulated in academia back in 2001. Among the signatories to this petition, the first 100 are said to be the most notable and most prominent scientists and academics. They are the ones who had signed the petition in question in 2001, prior to its first known publication.

Let's take a close look at the article in Wikipedia. First look at the main section, Statement, just below the article table of contents. Note that the text of the statement is in a pink box, with the italicized title outside the box. So far, so good. Below the pink box with the 32-word statement, the article continues, "The statement, and its title, refer to ..." Notice how the authors of this article have distinguished the 32-word statement from the 5-word title. In a minute you'll discover why. But first look at the balance of that section carefully, with special attention to the degree of ambiguity as to what it is that the petition is a "dissent from." Notice the article is now referring to "the petition" which is ambiguous, because we don't know if 'petition' refers just to the 32-word statement, or to the 32-word statement plus the 5-word title as a package.

Now we come to the next section, Discovery Institute usage, which talks about a "list of names" that the Discovery Institute has published in various paid advertisements, beginning in 2001.

Now it's time to drill down to the primary sources, which are references 19 and 20 in the current version of the article. Reference 19 goes to a press release from the Discovery Institute that has some bylined text followed by a bold-faced title, an italicized 32-word statement in quotes, and then a list of about 100 signatories. Reference 20 goes to a facsimile of the printed ad, as it appeared in the NY Times and other publications around September/October 2001. This is the best source. Look at it carefully.

It is a newspaper ad with a headline, two paragraphs of advertising copy and then a gray box with a 32-word statement in quotes, surrounded by the same list of about 100 names.

Now, here is the Socratic part, dear reader:

1. What is the headline of the advertisement?
   
2. What is the title of the statement inside the gray box? (Is there one?)
   
3. If you were a journalist, what would be your evidence and reasoning to support the notion that those 100 scientists put their signature to a document that contained both a 5-word title and a 32-word statement?

Is it journalistically accurate and ethical to say that those 100 scientists put their names to a petition bearing the title, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"?

See also the cited analysis by Skip Evans, published by the NCSE shortly after the ad first appeared, which raises similar concerns about how the Discovery Institute had reframed and recontextualized the 32-word statement by framing it with a headline and two paragraphs of advertising copy suggesting how they'd like the public to interpret it.

Until last week, Wikipedia had prominently tagged the biographies of any of those scientists as "Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". That category tag has since been removed from Wikipedia, although it remains as a list, which includes those 100 scientists and academics who did not sign a petition bearing that name.

This is a very good post Moulton. I have a much clearer idea of what you are on about after reading it.

What I need help on — and I'm quite sincere and serious about this — is understanding what I might have done differently here, when I first raised the same objections to Hrafn, Filll, and ConfuciousOrnis.

What I need help on — and I'm quite sincere and serious about this — is understanding what I might have done differently here, when I first raised the same objections to Hrafn, Filll, and ConfuciousOrnis.

Moulton,

I cannot take you seriously when you use the word "sincere".

Please stop playing the "Mommy, What Can I Do" Game.

You are the person least likely to listen to the experiences and the insights of other people, so please cease your disingenuous game of pretending to seek advice.

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

What I need help on — and I'm quite sincere and serious about this — is understanding what I might have done differently here, when I first raised the same objections to Hrafn, Filll, and ConfuciousOrnis.

If you wanted the biography sorted out swiftly, you shouldn't have written this type of thing :

You're projecting, Hrafn42. I appreciate that you have an issue with immaturity.

Also, you appear to have turned discussions with your "adversarial editors" into some difficult, opaque, hide and seek session.

See also this diff of August 23, on the main article on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" where I introduced the same correction. If you advance to the next edit, you will see that Hrafn instantly reverted it, stating as his reason his unshakable belief in the theory I had just dispelled.

Now advance again to the next edit, where I expressly give the source as the cited ad, and describe in detail what can be found in it.

Advance again, and Hrafn reverts it, asserting that the cited source is "unsourced material".

Advance a few more diffs and you get the idea of what I was up against.

After three reverts, the dispute migrates to the article's talk page, where I get nowhere with Hrafn.

Read on down that talk page colloquy and you will quickly see the utter arrogance of Hrafn. And all of this is taking place on August 23, just two days into my first edit in his bailiwick.

And because I had the temerity to try to argue him out of his misconception, I was labeled "tendentious" (which, according to Filll's RfC against me, is evidently a bannable offense on the English Wikipedia).

What I need help on — and I'm quite sincere and serious about this — is understanding what I might have done differently here, when I first raised the same objections to Hrafn, Filll, and ConfuciousOrnis.

If you wanted the biography sorted out swiftly, you shouldn't have written this type of thing :

You're projecting, Hrafn42. I appreciate that you have an issue with immaturity.

Also, you appear to have turned discussions with your "adversarial editors" into some difficult, opaque, hide and seek session.

It felt like I was arguing with a petulant child. I had expected to find mature, professional editors, who behaved like my peers in academia.

Obviously that was a unwarranted expectation on my part.

I had no experience in dealing with a character like him.

What I need help on — and I'm quite sincere and serious about this — is understanding what I might have done differently here, when I first raised the same objections to Hrafn, Filll, and ConfuciousOrnis.

Well, I guess the point is that there is little anyone could have done.

I think if you were a Wikipedian of good standing, say a Tim Vickers, you might have held your ground with judicious use of noting appropriate policy.

The main point is that your VALID points that fell within policy were simply set aside as it claimed you were doing original research.

It is an argument that has been discussed on the OR pages: if someone uses a poor quality source and you are unable to use The Rules to get it rejected (in this case, the sourcing, as an advertisement should be dismissed either as a primary source which offers no commentary on its meaning, which others provide via OR to insert) it is quite often difficult to find another source that refutes the misinterpretation without descending into accusations of synthesis. Note you were not defeated on the quality of your arguments, you were defeated by a deliberate distortion of policy to support an erroneous point of view.

Given that your protagonists were using the identical policy that should have rejected their views to maintain their dubious claims, it is difficult to see how you could have held sway. By the time you appealed to higher powers, you had already been characterised as intransigent - which on re-reading, I do not really see, you will always be seen as intransigent if someone refuses to accept that they are wrong in the face of a reasonable quality of evidence.

Put simply: it is obvious that there was nothing a novice editor could have done to avoid the situation. It has required the notoriety of the event and some other hardened editors, well versed in Wikipedian ways, to sort out the article. That they were able to do this suggests that you were not necessarily wrong or intransigent.

Given that your immediate concerns of poor quality biographies are being addressed, then I suggest the appropriate thing to do, to show good faith in the Wikipedian processes, would be to await the Cla68/SV/FeloniousMonk ArbCom decision which should either identify the ID Crowd as an issue that needs to be resolved - where anyone cornered by that group should be up for review, or you will know that the Wikipedian processes are irredeemable and you should lobby for support for getting Greg onto the WMF and work for changes that way.

It felt like I was arguing with a petulant child. I had expected to find mature, professional editors, who behaved like my peers in academia.

Obviously that was a unwarranted expectation on my part.

I had no experience in dealing with a character like him.

I can't argue with that. That is the experience almost everyone has when they engage in Wikipedia...

"Oh hum... this website is interesting... what if I improve this a bit... hang on that's wrong... pardon me?? ...HOLY CRAP WHO THE HELL ARE YOU AND WHAT IS THIS PLACE????"

I assumed it was full of diligent, enthusiastic and intelligent people when I encountered it. Afterwards, I had to revise my understanding of the word "idiot".

What I need help on — and I'm quite sincere and serious about this — is understanding what I might have done differently here, when I first raised the same objections to Hrafn, Filll, and ConfuciousOrnis.

Well, I guess the point is that there is little anyone could have done.

Your observation is very helpful, DB. There is no doubt I failed utterly in my interaction with Hrafn. The question that had been nagging me for the past 10 months is what I could have done to win him over to what I believed was the correct way to examine the evidence in the primary sources.

I think if you were a Wikipedian of good standing, say a Tim Vickers, you might have held your ground with judicious use of noting appropriate policy.

The main point is that your VALID points that fell within policy were simply set aside as it claimed you were doing original research.

That exasperated me, because I was simply reporting, as objectively as I knew how, what was to be found in the primary source and in the citable commentary on it from the reputable analyst at the NSCE.

Having been editing in earnest for barely two days, I didn't have a clue how to cite policy the way a veteran might have done. Nor were there any other neutral editors in attendance to assume that role as a disinterested umpire.

It is an argument that has been discussed on the OR pages: if someone uses a poor quality source and you are unable to use The Rules to get it rejected (in this case, the sourcing, as an advertisement should be dismissed either as a primary source which offers no commentary on its meaning, which others provide via OR to insert) it is quite often difficult to find another source that refutes the misinterpretation without descending into accusations of synthesis. Note you were not defeated on the quality of your arguments, you were defeated by a deliberate distortion of policy to support an erroneous point of view.

The only other source for the list of names was the DI's own web site, DissentFromDarwin.Org, which is not a WP:RS for the veracity of any representations; it's only a WP:RS for what can be found there. So they needed the ad to prove that the DI had not fabricated the list of names or conflated multiple lists from different epochs with a subsequent high-intensity PR campaign. Except that the ad revealed they had indeed conflated multiple lists from multiple epochs over a five-year metamorphosis of the original untitled petition into a full-fledged and highly controversial PR campaign.

Given that your protagonists were using the identical policy that should have rejected their views to maintain their dubious claims, it is difficult to see how you could have held sway. By the time you appealed to higher powers, you had already been characterised as intransigent - which on re-reading, I do not really see, you will always be seen as intransigent if someone refuses to accept that they are wrong in the face of a reasonable quality of evidence.

And that's where I fell down, as a would-be science educator. I had met someone who appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be uneducable by any method known to me.

Put simply: it is obvious that there was nothing a novice editor could have done to avoid the situation. It has required the notoriety of the event and some other hardened editors, well versed in Wikipedian ways, to sort out the article. That they were able to do this suggests that you were not necessarily wrong or intransigent.

I was frankly gobsmacked to be told that I was the one who was intransigent.

Given that your immediate concerns of poor quality biographies are being addressed, then I suggest the appropriate thing to do, to show good faith in the Wikipedian processes, would be to await the Cla68/SV/FeloniousMonk ArbCom decision which should either identify the ID Crowd as an issue that needs to be resolved - where anyone cornered by that group should be up for review, or you will know that the Wikipedian processes are irredeemable and you should lobby for support for getting Greg onto the WMF and work for changes that way.

As I indicated in another thread, if I am unblocked before that case is argued, I may follow in Krimpet's footsteps and insert my own similar testimony, although it would have to be limited to the role of FeloniousMonk only.

If that window opens up in time, I will ask you and others here to help me craft a paragraph of testimony that focuses properly on the role of FeloniousMonk in his capacity as a senior supervisory member of the WikiClique on ID.

I've asked myself similar questions about how I could have gone about editing Wikipedia for profit, without getting banned in October 2006.

The honest answer is fairly simple. It was becoming clear to me that my business was not likely to skyrocket. In about six weeks' time, after press release blasts and other gimmicks, we had netted about eight clients. Only three were ambitious enough to request follow-up projects, but only one of these requested truly legitimate additions to Wikipedia. The other two were just pushing too hard and skirting the policies of NPOV and NOTABILITY, so I backed away politely from their additional requests.

Then we tried direct-mailing about 120 professionally-designed "letters of offer" to radio stations and professional-grade golf courses that did not have articles on Wikipedia. I had surmised that radio stations and golf courses were untapped opportunities within Wikipedia and industry players who would definitely respond well to the notion of "visibility" on Wikipedia.

We got one feedback inquiry from that mailing, and they didn't even turn out to engage our services.

I got frustrated.

And all the while, I was collecting information on how Jimmy Wales was directly profiting from Wikipedia's "feed" to Wikia, Inc., and it made me angry that he so expressly forbade Wikipedia Review the "appearance of a conflict of interest", all while he sat atop a heaping pile of COI.

So, I made the unconscious decision to not "leave well enough alone", and I began to take a too-interested part in the evolving WP:COI policy. When I e-mailed Jimbo that October night when WP:COI was upgraded from guideline to policy, that was the tipping point for Jimbo; his excuse to go ape-shit on my account.

Like Moulton should, I have to be a big enough boy to admit that I played plenty a part in getting myself banned. But, it was mostly because my sense of fairness wouldn't allow me to "leave well enough alone" within an environment that is fraught with unfair advantages to certain people. My anankastic tendencies didn't help, either.

Greg

It felt like I was arguing with a petulant child. I had expected to find mature, professional editors, who behaved like my peers in academia.

Obviously that was a unwarranted expectation on my part.

I had no experience in dealing with a character like him.

I can't argue with that. ...

...

I assumed it was full of diligent, enthusiastic and intelligent people when I encountered it. Afterwards, I had to revise my understanding of the word "idiot".

I made the same lamentable mistake. Moreover, it took me ten months (with the help of WR) to find some enthusiastic, intelligent, and fair-minded people who were willing to take up the challenge. I am especially grateful to PrivateMusings whose courageous gambit with NTWW generated the long-missing community focus on the problem, in the presence of Wikipedians of good will. And among those whom I met on NTWW roundtables, Kim Bruning was especially instrumental.

Like Moulton should, I have to be a big enough boy to admit that I played plenty a part in getting myself banned. But, it was mostly because my sense of fairness wouldn't allow me to "leave well enough alone" within an environment that is fraught with unfair advantages to certain people. My anankastic tendencies didn't help, either.

There was no doubt in my mind that I was playing what felt like a designated role in a pre-scripted drama. And so I did play the part I was cast in. I could have just walked away. But I still am trying to figure out how I might have played my role more creatively to change the ending. What dissatisfied me about the way KillerChihuahua and Yamla ended the play was that their posted reasons for their preferred outcome didn't make any sense. I mean how can an audience enjoy a play where the ending makes no sense? I think that's why Sheffield Steel expected there to be another act...

Just as at the end of an episode of any good soap opera, I am somewhat interested in seeing what happens next. If Durova can steer Moulton towards productive contributions, I will be very impressed. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As to anankastic drives, it's hard to deny that these WikiDramas are compelling soap operas.

But then they need decent endings, do they not?

But then they need decent endings, do they not?

Never actually watched a soap opera, Moulton has, I'm guessing.

Here's A Hint (HAH) —
They Never Never Φreekin' End !!!

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

Someone gives their take on part of the situation on FT2's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2...-SV_ArbCom_case

This post has been edited by Cla68:

I wish someone would explain to me how it is possible to defeat "threats to science" by adopting tactics that are anathema to science, such as willfully failing to examine evidence for a proposed theory with a keenly skeptical eye or by employing bullying tactics to silence those who prefer to adhere to the protocols of the scientific method.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Someone gives their take on part of the situation on FT2's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2...-SV_ArbCom_case

I posted about that here. He's another academic type the ID clique tried to drive off.

Colloquy between Moulton and Filll on Moulton's Talk Page...

What do you make of dogbiscuit's response here? —Moulton (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice guy I am sure, but it is completely wrong. Wow. Amazing how much he misunderstands.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

DB, it would appear you and I share the same misunderstanding, per the judgment of Dr. Filll. Where did we flunk the course?

Colloquy between Moulton and Filll on Moulton's Talk Page...

What do you make of dogbiscuit's response here? —Moulton (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice guy I am sure, but it is completely wrong. Wow. Amazing how much he misunderstands.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

DB, it would appear you and I share the same misunderstanding, per the judgment of Dr. Filll. Where did we flunk the course?

I am sure that this boils down to conviction. The ID Crowd believe they have right on their side, so every interpretation they make, they only see words which support their view.

It is a classic example of why there are policies on ownership and neutrality. Their mindset has become so fixed that they cannot re-frame their thinking to taking a neutral view.

What is really fascinating about this group is that their fundamental position is well grounded in view points the vast majority would agree with. It simply does not make sense that they need to do this massive extrapolation into fantasy. The only explanation is that they have a terror that the ID argument is so plausible to the uneducated masses that only distortion and exaggeration can defeat it. Perhaps they watch too much Jimmy Swaggart or haven't sent enough donations to the Prayer Tower.

I have no doubt at all that Filll is sincere in his beliefs, that is why it ends up being personal, because for Filll to be wrong he would now have to fundamentally question his core values.

This is a classic example of where you need an article arbcom, where people with rational judgement are empowered to determine whether a particular form of article is appropriate, and enforce that judgement through neutral administrative supervision.

Three times I asked for content mediation. I asked for an Ombudsman and/or a Mediator, but none materialized. A Third Opinion person showed up, saw there were more than two editors involved, and said he only handled cases where there were but two editors involved.

The only explanation is that they have a terror that the ID argument is so plausible to the uneducated masses that only distortion and exaggeration can defeat it.

I'll be damned if I can figure out what their core dread is. My first guess would have been Fear of Humiliation (at being proven wrong). But I don't see how to acquire any reliable evidence for such speculation on their idiosyncratic dreads and desires. I can't even figure out what their primary objectives are.

I have no doubt at all that Filll is sincere in his beliefs, that is why it ends up being personal, because for Filll to be wrong he would now have to fundamentally question his core values.

Do you have a bead on his core values? I thought they might have been connected to the core values of the scientific enterprise. But then one would have expected his derivative practices to adhere to the protocols of the scientific method. I can't tell you the name of the protocols Filll, Hrafn, and Ornis were following on August 23rd, but they were nothing like the scientific method, as I understand and strive to practice it.

I have no doubt at all that Filll is sincere in his beliefs, that is why it ends up being personal, because for Filll to be wrong he would now have to fundamentally question his core values.

Do you have a bead on his core values? I thought they might have been connected to the core values of the scientific enterprise. But then one would have expected his derivative practices to adhere to the protocols of the scientific method. I can't tell you the name of the protocols Filll, Hrafn, and Ornis were following on August 23rd, but they were nothing like the scientific method, as I understand and strive to practice it.

I'm presuming it is a religious or atheistic zeal. While most of us in the world let ID be an amusing but irrelevant little anecdote in the passage of life, for some it has struck a chord evoking a passionate response. It does seem to be an issue of passionate preaching rather than documenting knowledge.

ID will never be attractive to me as an atheist - anyway, I can happily exist in a world where I do not understand everything and have no need to have every little detail explained. Like Newtonian physics, Darwinism fits my comfort zone, I have no need on a daily basis to comprehend the intricacies of e=mc2 - I can delegate to Einstein where appropriate. If at some point I arrive at a problem that requires more understanding, then I am happy to investigate it, but I find I can happily bumble along without being a know-all who knows it all - I prefer being a know-all who guesses a bit!

Do you have a bead on his core values?

I'm presuming it is a religious or atheistic zeal.

Hrrmmm.

Zeal. Zealotry.

Did you know that zealous has the same etymological root as jealous?

And jealousy is the emotion associated with being scorned.

There is definitely an air of scorn in that WikiClique on ID.

I doubt scorn is a becoming principle upon which to craft articles for a respectable encyclopedia.

More from Moulton's talk page...

Filll, you can find dogbiscuit's reply to you here. —Moulton (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked. He sees the world in black and white, not even shades of grey, and certainly not in color I guess. And he just goes with what he thinks is some obvious reason, assuming things about my personal beliefs and those of others to force some interpretation of his own creation on the situation. What some people do not seem to get is, my personal beliefs in the matter are irrelevant here - everyone's are. We have a set of rules for WP. And we follow the rules, as best as we can.

Would you want to play basketball with someone who demonstrated by their deeds and actions they did not want to play by the rules? Suppose one of the opposing teams stated that they intended to allow 20 players on the floor at once, and to introduce 3 basetballs into play instead of just one? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they be allowed to pass the ball to the crowd and have the crowd pass it back to one of their players, without stopping the play? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they receive no penalty for intentionally tripping members of the other team? And so on? Do you think that the league would let them continue to play with their own made up rules? Do you think that everyone would give in to their demands? What if they were asked to read the rule book and follow the rules and they refused repeatedly? What do you think would happen?

I believe that it is quite likely that you will dismiss this as inaccurate, or an inapplicable analogy, or try to ignore it, or to find some loophole, or claim I am being unfair. Do you think that might be part of the reason you are in the situation you find yourself in? Interesting question, don't you think?--Filll (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Watcha think?

More from Moulton's talk page...

Filll, you can find dogbiscuit's reply to you here. —Moulton (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked. He sees the world in black and white, not even shades of grey, and certainly not in color I guess. And he just goes with what he thinks is some obvious reason, assuming things about my personal beliefs and those of others to force some interpretation of his own creation on the situation. What some people do not seem to get is, my personal beliefs in the matter are irrelevant here - everyone's are. We have a set of rules for WP. And we follow the rules, as best as we can.

Would you want to play basketball with someone who demonstrated by their deeds and actions they did not want to play by the rules? Suppose one of the opposing teams stated that they intended to allow 20 players on the floor at once, and to introduce 3 basetballs into play instead of just one? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they be allowed to pass the ball to the crowd and have the crowd pass it back to one of their players, without stopping the play? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they receive no penalty for intentionally tripping members of the other team? And so on? Do you think that the league would let them continue to play with their own made up rules? Do you think that everyone would give in to their demands? What if they were asked to read the rule book and follow the rules and they refused repeatedly? What do you think would happen?

I believe that it is quite likely that you will dismiss this as inaccurate, or an inapplicable analogy, or try to ignore it, or to find some loophole, or claim I am being unfair. Do you think that might be part of the reason you are in the situation you find yourself in? Interesting question, don't you think?--Filll (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Watcha think?

I think that I am very much a grey person. The point of the rules is that they are subject to interpretation. He seems to subscribe to a belief that he is not interpreting rules but simply applying them.

It is interesting that his analogy is just what I could use to describe the ID crowds actions - except they are waving the rule book at me and saying "Here are the rules, we are right" without actually bothering to look, because they've played for so long they just know they are.

I don't want to descend into trial by example, but my view was formed by assertions that using adverts from the Times was some kind of quality sourcing, the determination to apply a rule blindly - they've read the assertion that mainstream newspapers are good quality sources, the advert appeared in a mainstream newspaper therefore the contents of the advert must have had some sort of editorial approval. That source should never have been any part of the argument, it is simply a primary source. Clearly, the other element, the massive extrapolation of Picard's belief system based on the signature is an incredible use of synthesis. Go and read WP:NOR and you will find that someone spent some time trying to get wording that says: if you use any sort of analysis, you have to source that analysis, you cannot simply use a primary source and synthesise your own controversial analysis.

Put simply, where is the source that shows that Picard knowingly signed a petition that was sponsored by the DI and was intended to support Intelligent Design (Creationism) over Darwinism (Evolution) and is an ongoing supporter of the DI? There is no source that has that analysis, therefore there is not a valid source, by the rules, to put that analysis in place. It is not a case of you needing to find sources to rebut this assertion, so that there can be a to and fro debate. Yes, it may well be noteworthy that she signed this petition, but I would want more evidence than a mention in one single newspaper article before I would consider it noteworthy (there is even a policy that explicitly covers that somewhere too).

Filll's problem is that he knows you did your own OR to rebut the nonsense on the page and probably is thinking at cross-purposes, he is happily using the rules to reject YOUR argument. However, I get the impression he has never really examined the original sourcing to justify the ID Crowd line, where there was a massive reliance on one single article in the NYT and presumptions and interpretations layered upon it. It is just poor quality editing, full stop.

All the NYT story of 2006 reveals is that Picard's name is one of a number of names who are listed on the newly launched DissentFromDarwin.Org web site. You can report what the DI claims that means, but you can't elevate the claims of PR site like that to the level of a {fact} on the ground, especially given that coterminous analysis by Skip Evans of the NCSE dissecting those doubtful claims and declaring them so much horse dookie. To get that the first 100 scientists actually signed anything at all, you have to go to the facsimile of the anti-PBS ad, which exhibits the totality of what those 100 scientists put their name to. To say more than that is not only synthesis, it's demonstrably false by any reasonable objective journalistic standard.

I could have taken that same 32-word untitled statement and published a different ad with the headline, "100 Scientists Call for Rigorous Adherence to the Protocols of the Scientific Method When Reviewing the Evidence for Scientific Theories". Moreover, I daresay those 100 scientists would not have taken issue with that headline. Then if I start a PR website called RigorInScience.Org, and invite more people to sign, would I be in the clear if I asserted that the initial 100 signers put their name to the "Call for Rigor In Science Petition"? What if I called it the "Dissent From Sloppy Science" Petition, instead?

Do you think Hrafn, Fill, or ConfuciousOrnis would have accepted that equally plausible interpretation and label to the otherwise untitled 32-word statement?

...And we follow the rules, as best as we can.

Would you want to play basketball with someone who demonstrated by their deeds and actions they did not want to play by the rules? Suppose one of the opposing teams stated that they intended to allow 20 players on the floor at once, and to introduce 3 basetballs into play instead of just one? ...
--Filll (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[/indent]

Watcha think?

What do I think? I think he misspelled "basetballs". It should be "bassetballs":

(IMG:http://www.wikipediareview.com/images/6/61/Basset_hound_testes.jpg)

Greg, you are more incorrigible than David Berlinski.

Media Ethics: Into the pot, already boiling

What Is the Rate of Progress?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008

On Monday, I published an article on the Media Ethics blog entitled, What Is the Name of This Problem?

I also copied it, verbatim, to a discussion thread on Wikipedia Review.

Today, I noticed on my watchlist that there had been some new activity on the article on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

Yesterday, it seems, a Wikipedian named WAS 4.250, boldly undertook to correct a long-festering inaccuracy in that article. And he also posted a comment about it on the article's talk page. Having moved the ball closer to the goal line of accuracy, excellence, and ethics, the defending editors pushed back with all their might, so there was modest net gain in yardage at the end of two days. The article still does not acknowledge that the name, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was originally just the headline on the Anti-PBS ad of 2001.

I suppose I might have used the same 32-word petition in an ad headlined "100 Scientists Urge Rigorous Adherence to the Protocols of the Scientific Method When Examining Evidence in Support of Scientific Theories" followed by a couple of paragraphs of advertising copy explaining what that means. And I suppose I could have later launched a promotional web site, RigorInScience.Org, soliciting even more signatures. I wonder if those 100 scientists would have smiled in approval or frowned in disapproval of the way I had interpreted and promoted their previously untitled statement.

When I wrote the blog article on Monday, the key references were #19 and #20, buried deep in the article. Now the key references are #1 and #2. That's as it should be, since they are the references one must examine to sort {fact} from fiction PR spin.

So good for you, WAS 4.250. You're a mensch in my book. We've come a long way in a mere 10 months. We're halfway to the goal now. Zeno would be kvelling in his grave.

And thanks to Wikipedian PelleSmith, too, for pointing out that whatever goes for the main article goes for the WP:COATRACKS out there in that ever-hazardous BLP space.

We've come a long way in a mere 10 months. We're halfway to the goal now. Zeno would be kvelling in his grave.

What you mean 'we,' white man?

We've come a long way in a mere 10 months. We're halfway to the goal now. Zeno would be kvelling in his grave.

What you mean 'we,' white man?

Poetic license in the spirit of community making and bridge building.

The collegial and congenial Dr. Filll analyzes Moulton's Objectives...

Your objectives

I guarantee if you do not agree to follow the rules and take instruction in how to behave here, you will have the same experience you did the last time. You might even be shown the door quicker.

I know you want to "improve" the system, according to your own intuition and undestanding. My interpretation is that you want to dictate rules to tens of thousands of other users, based on nothing besides the fact that you are Moulton. That is not how a collaborative, consensus-driven enterprise like Wikipedia works. The fact that you even believe it is possible when you do not understand the system is mind-boggling, and shows you are not much of a "scientist" or "researcher" at all.

If you want to try to improve the system (as I and many others do), you have to understand it first. And you will not understand it by sitting over at WR and throwing stones at Wikipedia with other malcontents. And you will not understand the system by demanding that you be allowed to disobey all the policies and practices and conventions, and to insult others at will who are only trying to follow the rules, and do so with impunity and no consequences.

I would suggest that you do what I did; pick some very bland topics you are interested in, like the theatre, or some playwrite, or chess, or Arabic poetry and build up a few FA and GA articles over a few months. Get at least 20,000 edits under your belt, and write a good 100 articles or more.

Then try a controversial article in an area in which you are not personally involved, like "race and IQ" or "chiropractic" or "electronic voice phenomenon". Get at least 500 edits on the talk page of a controversial article trying to broker a consensus between warring factions and get the article closer to the standards that Wikipedia aspires to (not your standards, but Wikipedia's).

Put some time in closing threads at the COI noticeboard or a few other noticeboards.

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

That is reality. Deal with it. Otherwise, you are like an illiterate high school dropout demanding a chaired position in the English Department at Harvard. It ain't gunna happen.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture.

The collegial and congenial Dr. Filll analyzes Moulton's Objectives …

Your objectives

I guarantee if you do not agree to follow the rules and take instruction in how to behave here, you will have the same experience you did the last time. You might even be shown the door quicker.

I know you want to "improve" the system, according to your own intuition and undestanding. My interpretation is that you want to dictate rules to tens of thousands of other users, based on nothing besides the fact that you are Moulton. That is not how a collaborative, consensus-driven enterprise like Wikipedia works. The fact that you even believe it is possible when you do not understand the system is mind-boggling, and shows you are not much of a "scientist" or "researcher" at all.

If you want to try to improve the system (as I and many others do), you have to understand it first. And you will not understand it by sitting over at WR and throwing stones at Wikipedia with other malcontents. And you will not understand the system by demanding that you be allowed to disobey all the policies and practices and conventions, and to insult others at will who are only trying to follow the rules, and do so with impunity and no consequences.

I would suggest that you do what I did; pick some very bland topics you are interested in, like the theatre, or some playwrite, or chess, or Arabic poetry and build up a few FA and GA articles over a few months. Get at least 20,000 edits under your belt, and write a good 100 articles or more.

Then try a controversial article in an area in which you are not personally involved, like "race and IQ" or "chiropractic" or "electronic voice phenomenon". Get at least 500 edits on the talk page of a controversial article trying to broker a consensus between warring factions and get the article closer to the standards that Wikipedia aspires to (not your standards, but Wikipedia's).

Put some time in closing threads at the COI noticeboard or a few other noticeboards.

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

That is reality. Deal with it. Otherwise, you are like an illiterate high school dropout demanding a chaired position in the English Department at Harvard. It ain't gunna happen. Filll (talk | wpc) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture.

I have heard Wikipediots recite this same form of argument on many occasions …

There is something oddly familiar about it …

Oh, right, now I remember … It's an argument that

Expertise Matters!

Kinda ironic, though, coming from them …

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture.

His bedside manner may leave something to be desired but this is the same thing a lot of people, including myself, have been telling you for some time.

You don't have to go along with how things are done at WP to have a happy life. There are plenty of other things to do in life that can make you happy.... But typically you do have to edit within the rules (or a reasonable approximation based on your good faith best understanding of them) if you want to edit there. You're not wrong for not wanting to do that, but I don't see you getting unblocked for very long until you internalise what people are telling you. I told you this a while ago.

Like I said, I think I have a collegial and congenial relationship with you. I think you have some valuable insights to share, but until you abide by the rules, you can't edit successfully there, and until you pay your dues, ain't no one gonna listen. You gotta go along to get along.

Does that make me a WP "fixer"? Maybe. But I've effected more change there (and had more fun there, for most definitions of "fun") than you have.

This post has been edited by Lar:

I very much appreciate Filll's warm and welcoming remarks helping to orient me to the Wikipedia community culture.

His bedside manner may leave something to be desired but this is the same thing a lot of people, including myself, have been telling you for some time.

You don't have to go along with how things are done at WP to have a happy life. There are plenty of other things to do in life that can make you happy … But typically you do have to edit within the rules (or a reasonable approximation based on your good faith best understanding of them) if you want to edit there. You're not wrong for not wanting to do that, but I don't see you getting unblocked for very long until you internalise what people are telling you. I told you this a while ago.

Like I said, I think I have a collegial and congenial relationship with you. I think you have some valuable insights to share, but until you abide by the rules, you can't edit successfully there, and until you pay your dues, ain't no one gonna listen. You gotta go along to get along.

Does that make me a WP "fixer"? Maybe. But I've effected more change there (and had more fun there, for most definitions of "fun") than you have.

And here's my advice to you, Lar.

Take those words, inscribe them on a large slice of Velveeta® Cheese, wrap it in plastic, stick it in the fridge.

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

But typically you do have to edit within the rules.

Lar, you talk about "editing within the rules". Ignore all rules. And does anyone think that Filll, Felonius Monk and others were editing within any rules? Of course they weren't. They were edit warring, not assuming good faith, not applying NPOV, not adhering to the basic tenets of BLP, blocking people they were engaging in disputes with etc etc. How on earth is anyone expected to figure out what rules to follow in that environment?

But I've effected more change there (and had more fun there, for most definitions of "fun") than you have.

Lar, you talk about "editing within the rules". Ignore all rules. And does anyone think that Filll, Felonius Monk and others were editing within any rules? Of course they weren't. They were edit warring, not assuming good faith, not applying NPOV, not adhering to the basic tenets of BLP, blocking people they were engaging in disputes with etc etc. How on earth is anyone expected to figure out what rules to follow in that environment?

Ya that behaviour is a problem. But that behaviour is the exception, not the norm. That is not to say that the behaviours you describe are acceptable, they are not. But they are outside the rules. The rules are not that hard to figure out, really. My wife has been reverted, I think, once, and never ever got into an edit war, much less ever been blocked. She has fun, and she does good work. It's possible to edit happily and peacefully.

Do you have to be a happy editor at WP to have a fun life? Heck, no, there are lots of other things to do in the world. But if you want to be a happy editor you have to act like the 5 pillars apply to you, even if others don't in your view, always do so. This is not at all unusual, we have bad people in real life but you don't see people saying "I don't understand the rules of driving" just because someone runs a red light in front of them.

Do with that what you will.

Oh and Jon, given how hard it is to write on Velveeta®, and that it is harder for smaller letters than for larger one, where can I get a slice of Velveeta big enough to inscribe all that stuff???

Oh and Jon, given how hard it is to write on Velveeta®, and that it is harder for smaller letters than for larger one, where can I get a slice of Velveeta® big enough to inscribe all that stuff???

It was only a serving suggestion.

Just be sure to write 'em on something that you like to eat a whole lot of …

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

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

Who the heck is this guy? He sounds like the headmaster of a British public school for unruly young boys.

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

Who the heck is this guy? He sounds like the headmaster of a British public school for unruly young boys.

You've heard of Will Beback?

Well, this is his duller and more pedantic brother, Thenandonlythen Will.

Don't all rush off to register it at once …

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

Then and only then will you have enough background to begin suggesting changes to Wikipedia's culture. Then and only then will you understand enough for your statements on improving Wikipedia to make any sense. Then and only then will anyone pay attention to you at all, and even then you will mostly be ignored.

Who the heck is this guy? He sounds like the headmaster of a British public school for unruly young boys.

It's neurolinguistic programming. If you have somebody read it to you with a neutral voice, it has a certain alphawave producing effect. MEGO. Soon you'll find that you're becoming more and deeply relaxed. Your eyes are becoming heavy. You find that your limbs are becoming heavy. Always at all times you're becoming more and more deeply relaxed....






Oh, you're awake, now! Now, I have some pictures of some nice animals to show you, and I want you to tell me the first word you think of.

-M

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

From Moulton's Talk Page...

Let's cut to the chase.

Let's cut to the chase. You need to say you will go along with how things are done here and then do so to the best of your ability, or it is pointless to unblock you. It would also be helpful if you were less frustrating to talk to. You have a way of being an exasperating conversation partner. Do you agree to edit wikipedia in a way that you honestly believe will usually be met with acceptance (and to back off in any specific instance when you find your belief was wrong) ? Will you try? If not, then we are just wasting our time. Please answer yes or no and not another one of your exasperating philosophical excursions. Will you try? WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mu. —Moulton (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That behavior is behavior that is not trying, so even though your answer is "That is an invalid question"; it is in fact a "No" answer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WAS, but I had already promised Kim Bruning that I was fine with the WP:5P, modulo the substitution of objective (as I understand it) in lieu of WP:NPOV which I frankly find incomprehensible, disputatious, and argumentative. I generally don't find objective to be as problematic or argumentative as WP:NPOV. I asked Kim if my participation here from August 21st through September 11th of last year departed from WP:5P in any substantive or problematic way. His answer was that to the best of his knowledge I did not depart from WP:5P, but he couldn't be absolutely 100% positive. Your question, above, was worded in a way that seemed to be at odds with my understanding of Kim's offer. Hope this helps.

Moulton (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My offer was inclusive NPOV, but we'd show you how it worked. I think WAS will support you if you state that you will try to follow the five pillars. Worst case you don't quite manage, or don't enjoy working in that manner, in which case you can walk away, but you will still have the benefit of an improved reputation. If you say No, there is absolutely nothing to be gained, and this opportunity will not come again. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As you know, Kim, I have stated that I have always been fine with the five pillars (modulo interpreting NPOV to be essentially synonymous with 'objective'), and (as far as I know) my participation here has never departed in any substantive degree from the five pillars. If there proves to be any substantive distinction between 'objective' and NPOV, I am fine with letting Ottava explain to me the distinction and demonstrate how to correct any resultant discrepancy. I have never stopped endeavoring to do my best, even under difficult circumstances. While I have no reliable way to predict whether my work will be met with acceptance or rejection, I nonetheless confidently believe that my work will ultimately be perceived and recognized as achieving a normative standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, appropriate to the enterprise of crafting a respectable encyclopedia that concords with the educational mission of the WMF.

Moulton (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from and how you mean those words, and we've had a cordial discussion, and that's coming almost all the way. But it's too little too late. :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC) ironically, if you'd have used less words, it might work out

Ya that behaviour is a problem. But that behaviour is the exception, not the norm. That is not to say that the behaviours you describe are acceptable, they are not. But they are outside the rules. The rules are not that hard to figure out, really.

They aren't? Oh, good, we have somebody here who asserts the rules are easy to figure out, and doesn't just snigger that okay they are nutso, so IAR and write well and pretend you believe in them.

Here are a few starts:

Wikipedia is supposed to strive for "verifiable accuracy". Verifiable turns out to refer to certain types of sources. Accuracy-- well, it's not defined. And with good reason, for in most languages "accuracy" means some sort of correspondance to reality, which is to say, to objective truth. Or at least, to truth as agreed to, by most experts. Especially as regards the sciences, but all domains of intellectual inquiry have their own standards.

From WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

No help there. We're not interested in just checking that the cite says what WP says it does. That's just the V part. We're interested if the source itself is correct. That's the R or reliable part.

Okay, so you track that down. When you go to find out what WP thinks a "reliable source" is, then you get WP:RS, which insists that sources be those that are "trustworthy" and with "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." These are direct policy quotes. In other words, they are those we think are likely to be TRUE. Hmmm.

Accuracy is mentioned in WP:VS. What is "accuracy" in this context? Let us take the physical sciences again, where things are easy. Does accuracy not usually mean "correspondance to physical reality," as when we're given a synthetic fact like the mass of a proton, in grams? Does accuracy not mean truth? What does "trustworthy" mean as regards to the source itself, other than likelihood not to report error, lies, or other untruth? And "fact checking," please? What would "fact checking" possibly consist of, if not that somebody has investigated the objective truth of statements? IOW, why would we care if our sources engage in fact checking, if we're not interested in facts???

What is a "fact" if not a statement which is regarded by the majority of experts to be true? "Consistant" is NOT the same as "reliable" and "trustworthy." A source may be consistantly wrong. But how to tell? Here's a gem from WP:RS: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." But alas, other names for your own common sense and your own editorial judgment, are POV-pushing and WP:SYNTH. Yes I understand that NPOV doesn't ask for no POV, but it does demand judgments regarding "due weight" which are (as a matter of common sense) impossible to agree on, even for experts, and still less possible for non experts, who, even if they're supposed to be relying on expert opinion, can't be trusted to know who the experts are, much less understand what they're writing.

The world "authoritative" is used. But seems to me meaningless without the idea of truth. If I'm an authority on something, what is it that makes me special? That I know about my subject? Know WHAT about it? Know lies about it? Know erroneous things about it? What is it I know about a subject which makes me an authority? Am I only an authority due to being acknowledged by other authorities? That's sort of recursive, is it not? It might actually operate when it comes to religion, but what about when we go to the real world? When do we get to the part where the airplane flies, the bridge stays up, and the computer network doesn't crash? These are not matters of opinion only. So where do they fit into WP's search for authority, reliablity, and trustworthiness? So far as I can see, nowhere. WP's official policy (frequently ignored, fortunately) is to be written as though an encyclopedia about the world written by people who've been born in the basement of a library, and never been outside its walls. All they have to go on is what they read, and can cite. But that's no way to write about reality. It tends to give you sex manuals written by virgins, and even worse, articles on physics written by people who aren't good with math. Wikipedia has an "expert review needed for this article" tag, but I don't know why, since officially they should never need it.

What is best to cite, even if you're stuck-for-life in a library? Here, we hit WP's official views on "knowledge". Ready for bias? There's a whole paragraph on RS which argues that News Organizations are reliable if they are "high end," and material from them is welcomed. Yes, the world "welcomed" is actually used, as though for respected guests: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press." Never mind that the opinion of historians and scientists (not to mention most journalists, who don't trust each other an inch) is that newspapers, not excluding "high-quality end of the market" ones are highly unreliable in what they say factually. For one thing, they have no time to get things more than approximately right, and they have heavy bias against fully reporting their own past errors, which they only do enough of, to give readers the (false) impression that they're trying to be somehow exhaustive about this. According to Wikipedia, the idea that newspapers are unreliable, is formally, and as a matter of policy, wrong. Er, which is to say, as a statement, it's not TRUE. Oh, bother.

Anyway, you were explaining how the official rules are easy to figure out. Obviously I've failed to do it, easy or no. So just explain a bit where I missed the idea, since I need help. Assume I'm an educated layman.

Milt

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

And that's why I would just want to promise to write as objectively as I know how and stay the hell away from that crazy-making tangle of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, etc. That stuff makes my head spin. But I can strive for accuracy, excellence and ethics and I feel like I'm on solid ground as a writer of what purports to be an authoritative treatment of a subject.

I have added the following commentary to Moulton's talk page:

The rate of progress in bringing the article up to standards (in terms of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media) appears to be picking up the pace. An IP editor has introduced a crucial improvement in the opening sentence:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is the name given to a petition notable for its use in promoting intelligent design. It is a list of signatories attesting to a statement, produced by the Discovery Institute, expressing skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism". This list was first published in advertisements under an added introduction which stated that its signatories dispute the assertion that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things, and dispute that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution".[1][2]

The most important part is the insertion of "the name given to". This important edit now helps the reader appreciate that the name given to the petition by the DI is not the name on the petition (it actually had no printed title on it at all). The article still doesn't reveal that the name initially appeared as the headline in the advertisement cited in Ref #1.

I hope our intrepid IP editor also attends to the "See also" section where the List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" takes the reader to another article that begins:

These are some of the individuals who have signed the Discovery Institute's pro-intelligent design/anti-evolution statement, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

So once again, we need to revise that to correct the inaccurate characterization of this list as living persons whom Wikipedia has inexplicably identified as proponents of ID or opponents of evolution.

Moulton (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The following section appears in the article, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism:

Critical responses

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous appeals to authority produced by other creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[27] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be many who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds.

I have posted the following new section on Moulton's talk page:

Critical Response

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism article has been narrowly criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to related articles produced by the same group of allied editors, the professional expertise of the dominant clique of editors is not always apparent and is suspected to be deficient in scientific rigor and journalistic ethics. Also, the professional affiliations and credentials for some of the dominant editors is open to question. Finally, there appear to be many who recently participated in the substantial improvement of these articles who are not committed to the agenda of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, and who have at times been treated abusively or who have changed their minds about trying to work with the main group of editors on these interlinked articles.

Moulton (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Baegis takes exception to the above parody...

Moulton, please consider this your only warning for any sort of attack (slight or grievous) on the editors of the ID wiki-project and any and all other editors. If your talk page is to remain open, posts like the one above need to be excluded. You have to give a little or everyone will wash their hands of your situation. So, please be mindful of this warning. I have also advised other editors to avoid baiting remarks on this page, as seen on the AN board. You may not feel the above is an attack, but considering the length of your collective postings about this particular wiki-project on WR, you would be best served by dropping this issue. If you choose to reply to this warning, please do so in a constructive manner. Thank you. Baegis (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to be a "good Wikipedian," Moulton, you will have to be a better politician and diplomat. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it seems to be the only way for you to get unblocked. That is, if you want to be unblocked. Poor Lar and Dihydrogen Monoxide/Giggy are putting their wiki-reputations on the line for you.

As much as I hate to admit it, you are at the ID Crowd's mercy and will have to accept their terms before there is any chance of you being unblocked.

This is why I don't edit WP much. Too much drama.* The whole system is about favor and nepotism, not merit or knowledge.

*I prefer to be in the audience than a character in the play! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Ya that behaviour is a problem. But that behaviour is the exception, not the norm. That is not to say that the behaviours you describe are acceptable, they are not. But they are outside the rules. The rules are not that hard to figure out, really.

They aren't? Oh, good, we have somebody here who asserts the rules are easy to figure out, and doesn't just snigger that okay they are nutso, so IAR and write well and pretend you believe in them.

Here are a few starts:

...snip of excellent analysis...

Anyway, you were explaining how the official rules are easy to figure out. Obviously I've failed to do it, easy or no. So just explain a bit where I missed the idea, since I need help. Assume I'm an educated layman.

Milt

Milt, that was an excellent review, well worthy of making it onto the blog.

The bit that infuriates me in this is the deliberate blindness of the ID Crowd. They must know that their sources are thin they just don't want to hear it. I don't believe that a sane interpretation of the intent of policy supports what they are doing, but it is evidence of the issues with the wording of policy that not only does it apparently support writing crap, but that otherwise sane people like Lar are able to suggest that Moulton is wrong.

There are a couple of other things that have been conveniently forgotten: Don't bite the newbies and ignore all rules.

Moulton was consistently abused for not knowing the rules, when the onus was on experienced editors to work with him, not against him. And Moulton, having given clear explanations of where the problem was, sought for something that "improved the encyclopedia" so again the onus was on other editors to set aside policy and work with Moulton on understand how best to address the issue. There was never any attempt to arrive at an honest representation, it was all about maintaining a fiction using a manipulation of convenient flaws in policy. Instead they told him in no uncertain terms to fuck off and stop spoiling their game.

Ya that behaviour is a problem. But that behaviour is the exception, not the norm. That is not to say that the behaviours you describe are acceptable, they are not. But they are outside the rules. The rules are not that hard to figure out, really.

They aren't? Oh, good, we have somebody here who asserts the rules are easy to figure out, and doesn't just snigger that okay they are nutso, so IAR and write well and pretend you believe in them.

Here are a few starts:

Wikipedia is supposed to strive for "verifiable accuracy". Verifiable turns out to refer to certain types of sources. Accuracy-- well, it's not defined. And with good reason, for in most languages "accuracy" means some sort of correspondance to reality, which is to say, to objective truth. Or at least, to truth as agreed to, by most experts. Especially as regards the sciences, but all domains of intellectual inquiry have their own standards.

From WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

No help there. We're not interested in just checking that the cite says what WP says it does. That's just the V part. We're interested if the source itself is correct. That's the R or reliable part.

Okay, so you track that down. When you go to find out what WP thinks a "reliable source" is, then you get WP:RS, which insists that sources be those that are "trustworthy" and with "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." These are direct policy quotes. In other words, they are those we think are likely to be TRUE. Hmmm.

Accuracy is mentioned in WP:VS. What is "accuracy" in this context? Let us take the physical sciences again, where things are easy. Does accuracy not usually mean "correspondance to physical reality," as when we're given a synthetic fact like the mass of a proton, in grams? Does accuracy not mean truth? What does "trustworthy" mean as regards to the source itself, other than likelihood not to report error, lies, or other untruth? And "fact checking," please? What would "fact checking" possibly consist of, if not that somebody has investigated the objective truth of statements? IOW, why would we care if our sources engage in fact checking, if we're not interested in facts???

What is a "fact" if not a statement which is regarded by the majority of experts to be true? "Consistant" is NOT the same as "reliable" and "trustworthy." A source may be consistantly wrong. But how to tell? Here's a gem from WP:RS: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." But alas, other names for your own common sense and your own editorial judgment, are POV-pushing and WP:SYNTH. Yes I understand that NPOV doesn't ask for no POV, but it does demand judgments regarding "due weight" which are (as a matter of common sense) impossible to agree on, even for experts, and still less possible for non experts, who, even if they're supposed to be relying on expert opinion, can't be trusted to know who the experts are, much less understand what they're writing.

The world "authoritative" is used. But seems to me meaningless without the idea of truth. If I'm an authority on something, what is it that makes me special? That I know about my subject? Know WHAT about it? Know lies about it? Know erroneous things about it? What is it I know about a subject which makes me an authority? Am I only an authority due to being acknowledged by other authorities? That's sort of recursive, is it not? It might actually operate when it comes to religion, but what about when we go to the real world? When do we get to the part where the airplane flies, the bridge stays up, and the computer network doesn't crash? These are not matters of opinion only. So where do they fit into WP's search for authority, reliablity, and trustworthiness? So far as I can see, nowhere. WP's official policy (frequently ignored, fortunately) is to be written as though an encyclopedia about the world written by people who've been born in the basement of a library, and never been outside its walls. All they have to go on is what they read, and can cite. But that's no way to write about reality. It tends to give you sex manuals written by virgins, and even worse, articles on physics written by people who aren't good with math. Wikipedia has an "expert review needed for this article" tag, but I don't know why, since officially they should never need it.

What is best to cite, even if you're stuck-for-life in a library? Here, we hit WP's official views on "knowledge". Ready for bias? There's a whole paragraph on RS which argues that News Organizations are reliable if they are "high end," and material from them is welcomed. Yes, the world "welcomed" is actually used, as though for respected guests: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press." Never mind that the opinion of historians and scientists (not to mention most journalists, who don't trust each other an inch) is that newspapers, not excluding "high-quality end of the market" ones are highly unreliable in what they say factually. For one thing, they have no time to get things more than approximately right, and they have heavy bias against fully reporting their own past errors, which they only do enough of, to give readers the (false) impression that they're trying to be somehow exhaustive about this. According to Wikipedia, the idea that newspapers are unreliable, is formally, and as a matter of policy, wrong. Er, which is to say, as a statement, it's not TRUE. Oh, bother.

Anyway, you were explaining how the official rules are easy to figure out. Obviously I've failed to do it, easy or no. So just explain a bit where I missed the idea, since I need help. Assume I'm an educated layman.

Milt

First, I don't recall saying the "official" rules are easy to figure out. They aren't. I said the rules are easy to figure out. It's a small distinction but an important one. Just like in real life. I can't remember the exact number of pages here and now, but the US adds thousands of pages of law a day. Which I ignore. I'm a law abiding citizen, not because I spend my entire time analysing all that nonsense about how many feet of yellow lines are required to be painted on curbs or whatever, but because I've figured out the basics... don't steal, don't hurt others, pay my taxes, follow the traffic laws, act with decorum in public. Those are basically all I need for my day to day routine. If I venture into some esoteric area like building permit regulations or whatever, I'll do a little research maybe, but then turn up and ask for reasonableness. It seems to work, aside from that one time as a youth where I threw up in the back of a police car (violating public decorum, I was drunk at the time), because I've never been IN a police car...

So too with Wikipedia. I don't pay close attention to the nuances. There is a thicket of rules, policies, guidelines, essays and more, and you easily can get lost in them if you like. You can even play rules lawyer if you want. But I don't. I just go on about my business. Everything I need to know is in the 5 pillars document.

To your specific example, when I'm writing an article I find the best sources I can and leave it at that. If someone challenges me about them, I discuss it collegially on the talk page and I don't get too sussed if the end result is different than when I started, as long as the reader still will get basically correct information. (to be fair, I write in amazingly uncontentious areas. So does my wife. My choice... but I did run into contention on my FA article... I just fixed up the sources as best I could and dealt with the objections, and it's a better article now than it was)

When I get involved in contentious areas as someone coming in later, I try to do what is reasonable. I don't cite policy that often (BLP being a notable exception, but thats because I'm trying to change things) but I don't need to. I have a reputation as a fairly reasonable person and my words carry weight, the weight I earned by paying my dues.

Now, are there others out there who don't act reasonably, who are not playing the same game I am? Yes.

I don't deny there are problem areas, matters that need fixing, cabals and cliques that need to be put out of business? But that wasn't my point. My point is that the rules are easy to figure out. And they are. That some deviate from the general "reasonableness principle" and ruleslawyer to get their POV pushing way does not mean the rules are not easy to figure out, it means those people need to be addressed.

I believe Moulton could edit happily on WP, and build up a reputation as a reasonable person as well, and gain the influence that came with it, if he wanted. I might be wrong. I don't buy "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" sales pitch. Some people will not, or can not, edit successfully. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by individual makeup, but there it is.

I don't think Moulton is one of those who cannot. He's a reasonable person, if a bit tenacious.

Now, SHOULD Moulton want to do this? I dunno. Not for me to say... It's up to him. There are many many ways to have a wonderful life without ever even reading Wikipedia, much less editing it.

In order to be a "good Wikipedian," Moulton, you will have to be a better politician and diplomat. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it seems to be the only way for you to get unblocked. That is, if you want to be unblocked. Poor Lar and Dihydrogen Monoxide/Giggy are putting their wiki-reputations on the line for you.

As much as I hate to admit it, you are at the ID Crowd's mercy and will have to accept their terms before there is any chance of you being unblocked.

This is why I don't edit WP much. Too much drama.* The whole system is about favor and nepotism, not merit or knowledge.

*I prefer to be in the audience than a character in the play! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

OK, here is a scavenger hunt for you...

Can you find where I asked to be unblocked?

Can you find where I stated, one way or the other, whether or not I desired to be unblocked?

I believe Moulton could edit happily on WP, and build up a reputation as a reasonable person as well, and gain the influence that came with it, if he wanted. I might be wrong. I don't buy "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" sales pitch. Some people will not, or can not, edit successfully. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by individual makeup, but there it is.

OK, more scavenger hunt...

Can you find where I stated under what conditions I would be happy to edit mainspace articles again?

I don't think Moulton is one of those who cannot. He's a reasonable person, if a bit tenacious.

Now, SHOULD Moulton want to do this? I dunno. Not for me to say... It's up to him. There are many many ways to have a wonderful life without ever even reading Wikipedia, much less editing it.

Does anyone have an accurate theory of mind regarding Moulton's beliefs, desires, and intentions with respect to these issues?

If you believe you have such an accurate theory of mind, can you think of a way to find out if it is on the mark?

Baegis is anxious to put an end to the investigation, just as it's getting interesting to Kim and Lar.

Well, time to archive

Kim's self imposed deadline has arrived and passed without a move. I move that we archive this and file it in the "so close yet so far" file. I will be bold and archive it in 12 hours unless anyone has serious objections. Moulton's talk page will remain open (from what I gather) but I will remind any and all editors, myself included, to not bait Moulton. If people wish to have discussions with him, thats fine. And Moulton is cautioned against making any posting that could be considered an attack on any editors, especially those of any wiki-project. I do have misgivings about the length of time a harmonious environment will be kept on that page. Baegis (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I advised Moulton to avoid any attacks on other editors on his page after his last message questioning the ethics of the ID project editors. So he is aware of what is minimally expected of him if the talk page is to remain unlocked. Baegis (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for a bit more time. (yes, I know this has dragged on...) Kim and I talked on the phone yesterday about this matter, and I think he might have something brewing that might have bearing. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lar, but I don't really see any grounds for more time. Moulton continues to ignore the calls to make a statement that he will try to edit within policy while also posting all of his talk page messages for comment on WR. I fail to see why, after 8 days of discussion, this should continue any further. Moulton has exhausted his chances. I do apologize to all of the great editors who stuck their neck out to try to help him. You all showed a large outpouring of good faith for willing to undertake this matter. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wonder how Baegis came up with the amusing theory that Kim's deadline was self-imposed?

OK, here is a scavenger hunt for you...

Generally I don't play these... I tend to be more direct than didactic or socratic.

Can you find where I asked to be unblocked?

Can you find where I stated, one way or the other, whether or not I desired to be unblocked?

I don't believe you have explicitly asked to be, since you didn't place the {{unblock}} template. Which is the prescribed form.

As to your desires, there's rather a lot of statements to search but I've gathered that you don't desire to be unblocked unless things are not exactly as they are now.

Can you find where I stated under what conditions I would be happy to edit mainspace articles again?

There's rather a lot of statements to search... Why not just give us a pointer and save the scavenger hunts for those that want to play?

Does anyone have an accurate theory of mind regarding Moulton's beliefs, desires, and intentions with respect to these issues?

Sometimes only the person in question does. Sometimes no one does. Those ascribing theories of mind often should not be doing so... but the question is irrelevant, at least at one level, because what should be judged are outcomes, not intents. (note the use of the word "should" rather than "is")

I'm again getting tired of this matter, it's draining time I'd prefer to use elsewhere. No one can make you say "uncle" if you don't want to. Not and have you mean it.

Lar, if I gave you a pointer, it would spoil the hunt for those who like to play these games.

Did you notice that the last puzzle I posted was solved straighaway by someone who was not a Wikipedian?

I realize that's just one anecdote, one datum, but I had frankly predicted a Wikipedian would solve it.

I have added a new section to Moulton's talk page...

The Peerless Editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design

The editors of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design are without peer.

Which is a bit of a problem.

You see, one of the most important concepts in the protocols of the Scientific Method is the practice of Peer Review.

It's been a maddeningly difficult task to subject the articles of this WikiClique to outside peer review.

The putative agenda of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design is to fight off pseudo-science — an objective that I'm quite sympathetic to.

But it occurs to me that one cannot fight off pseudo-science with methods that do not themselves scrupulously honor the rigors of science.

And so, I was chagrined to observe the WikiClique on Intelligent Design depart from the protocols of the Scientific Method in favor of alternative methods of battle. To my mind, one must be scrupulously rigorous in examining the evidence for any hypothesis and reason carefully to scientifically defensible conclusions enroute to the ground truth. And one of the most important aspects of the Scientific Method is independent Peer Review.

The honorable scientist welcomes peer review, which often discovers correctable errors or other deficiencies which can be addressed to produce a more reliable theory or model well-grounded in evidence and reasoning. Moreover a good peer review can also introduce valuable new points of view previously overlooked.

Is this not a good thing for an enterprise whose mission is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and effectively disseminate it around the world?

Moulton (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review is a two way street. And you have been reviewed. And guess what the verdict was?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the jury is still out on your curious and fascinating model of the character whose name is Moulton. Would this be a good opportunity to call for a peer review of Filll's proposed scientific model of Moulton's character? —Moulton (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I must give Guettarda credit. He's managed to well and truly piss me off with this one (not an easy thing to do), specifically the claim that I've "gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good." I'm giving him the opportunity to back down and admit it's not true, but, if he doesn't, I'm taking it to dispute resolution.

Of course, if he thinks he's going to be able to bait me into doing something bannable through getting me angry, he's got another thing coming.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

Have you asked him for his evidence and reasoning?

It would be interesting to discover how he forms his beliefs, including any misconceptions.

Have you asked him for his evidence and reasoning?

It would be interesting to discover how he forms his beliefs, including any misconceptions.

Yes. Though, for the life of me, I can not figure out what post he could possible drag up and misinterpret to support such a claim. I do not mess with article content for internal political purposes, and would not advocate doing so, nor do I promote ID. Hence, I see few possibilities other than that Guettarda's comment was a bald-faced lie.

More colloquy from the WikiClique on Intelligent Design...

Peer review is a two way street. And you have been reviewed. And guess what the verdict was?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the jury is still out on your curious and fascinating model of the character whose name is Moulton. Would this be a good opportunity to call for a peer review of Filll's proposed scientific model of Moulton's character? —Moulton (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you probably should not be part of the jury. Let's let others decide, shall we?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And this is supposed to make people think you should be unblocked? All of your recent rants here are ample evidence that you are unsuited to participating constructively at Wikipedia. Odd nature (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You should know that we have had an outside peer-review of our evolution article and it was quite positive. We also get informal peer-reviews of our intelligent design article. Both of these, as well as introduction to evolution were extensively reviewed as part of the inhouse FAC process. And you, as a systems scientist who works on online communities and journalism and affective computing, are qualified to review articles in this area? How many times has Nature Cell Biology or Cell contacted you recently for a review of an article? I guess you did a lot of reviewing for Creation/Evolution journal? Oxford University Press has had you review works like Creationism's Trojan Horse have they? You are a renowned expert in this area are you?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Applied science is not real science. That's why they support ID, because they don't understand scientific method. Engineers, computer engineers, etc. aren't scientists. But what do I know, my IQ probably doesn't break 2 digits. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you asked him for his evidence and reasoning?

It would be interesting to discover how he forms his beliefs, including any misconceptions.

Yes. Though, for the life of me, I can not figure out what post he could possible drag up and misinterpret to support such a claim. I do not mess with article content for internal political purposes, and would not advocate doing so, nor do I promote ID. Hence, I see few possibilities other than that Guettarda's comment was a bald-faced lie.

Guettarda writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=214491462

Sxeptomaniac, you've made post after post on WR attacking various editors over here. You've gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good. Quite frankly, It's you're right to hang out with whatever crowd of malcontents you choose. But if you choose to sleep in filth, don't be offended when other people hold their nose when talking to you. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 20:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So presumably, Guettarda is referring to Moulton as filth? Who knows?

So presumably, Guettarda is referring to Moulton as filth? Who knows?

I'm pretty sure I showered this morning.

Baegis tried to close the WP:AN thread and archive it. But MastCell unarchived it and rebuked him for his temerity and hubris.

I'd like to ask for a bit more time. (yes, I know this has dragged on...) Kim and I talked on the phone yesterday about this matter, and I think he might have something brewing that might have bearing. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lar, but I don't really see any grounds for more time. Moulton continues to ignore the calls to make a statement that he will try to edit within policy while also posting all of his talk page messages for comment on WR. I fail to see why, after 8 days of discussion, this should continue any further. Moulton has exhausted his chances. I do apologize to all of the great editors who stuck their neck out to try to help him. You all showed a large outpouring of good faith for willing to undertake this matter. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit obscure here about why... let me try to clarify. Sometimes, as much as we might want our "adversary" to say "uncle", they won't say it exactly as we would want it said. But if they're communicating basically what we think is important, it may sometimes not matter if they use the exact words we want. That's what Kim and I were talking about when we talked... If you read for meaning, and strip away the rest, Moulton IS saying he's going to abide, at least under some interpretations. Just not in the explicit form some of us (including myself) would prefer. So I think it is prudent to keep this open a bit longer. ALSO, we still haven't had nearly the level of commentary here that we did on say, the Betacommand thread that was concurrent. Far fewer voices commented here than on his RFC even. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but with comments that clearly show he is not asking to be unblocked, this conversation is over. How can you rectify this with your belief that you are close to any sort of amicable solution to this? I do not care for the fact that there are editors making phone calls and trying to figure how to use any means to get Moulton back here. Show some respect for the other editors and just end this charade. He needs to try to abide by community standards or he remains blocked. There is no go around. He doesn't get a free pass. If you want to continue this elsewhere, thats fine. If you find a solution, fine as long as the community is made aware of the coniditions and is not troubled by them. But this thread on this board has reached the point of being useful. Baegisthesock (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've unarchived the thread. Please don't do this. We're not racing the clock here, and as long as Lar is pursuing something he believes may be fruitful, let's leave this open. We can trust Lar to be reasonable and circumspect here. You're not even making Moulton work very hard to push your buttons. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Take a cue from Wikipedia Review and just ignore him if you think he's got nothing to offer. De-watchlist his talkpage. If/when Lar and Kim have a proposed solution, I'm confident they'll submit it for comment by the community. MastCell Talk 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would Baegis want to archive the thread just when he realizes the thread had finally reached the point of being useful?

So presumably, Guettarda is referring to Moulton as filth? Who knows?

I'm pretty sure I showered this morning.

I'll bet you can properly spell the word "your", too!

Credit where credit is due.

The puzzle I posed on my talk page was originally solved by a mystery IP from Atlanta.

But it turned out to be Guettarda, who had merely forgotten to login.

Guettarda clarifies the filth...

No, not you

No, I wasn't referring to you. I meant all the things they have said about people like Slim Virgin. I don't think you're making sense, but I wouldn't call what you had to say "filth". Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I haven't said anything to or about SV, as I've never had occasion to encounter her in the pages of Wikipedia. Her backstory may be of interest to some but it holds no fascination or thrall for me. —Moulton (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda clarifies the filth...

No, not you

No, I wasn't referring to you. I meant all the things they have said about people like Slim Virgin. I don't think you're making sense, but I wouldn't call what you had to say "filth". Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I haven't said anything to or about SV, as I've never had occasion to encounter her in the pages of Wikipedia. Her backstory may be of interest to some but it holds no fascination or thrall for me. —Moulton (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

One wonders who the "they" are in that case. And what "they" said about SlimVirgin that means they are filth.

I'll go on record and say that SlimVirgin was outrageously manipulative, and debased the Wikipedia project from 2005 onwards via excessive gaming, lying, bullying and other damaging methods. She played a big part in the site's rapid deterioration towards an arena where rampant oligarchies used WPs status on google as a real world weapon against political rivals. SlimVirgin was a poster child for a lot of what had gone wrong with WP. Most people who follow Wikipedia closely would agree with that assessment, I think.

If pointing that out makes people "filth" in the eyes of people that continue to behave in the same outrageous manner, as this crowd have done over the Picard article, then that is no surprise.

Here is the continuation of that commentary...

No, not you

No, I wasn't referring to you. I meant all the things they have said about people like Slim Virgin. I don't think you're making sense, but I wouldn't call what you had to say "filth". Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I haven't said anything to or about SV, as I've never had occasion to encounter her in the pages of Wikipedia. Her backstory may be of interest to some but it holds no fascination or thrall for me. —Moulton (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thrall? Hmm. •Jim62sch•dissera! 05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thrall "a. One, such as a slave or serf, who is held in bondage. b. One who is intellectually or morally enslaved. 2. Servitude; bondage: 'a people in thrall to the miracles of commerce'" Moulton is simply saying that he is not in bondage or a slave, mentally or physically, to uncovering a so-called "slim virgin" - to seeking the "backstory" of "Slimvirgin". He claims no fascination with spreading wide the fascinating tale of her prior escapades nor her history of involvements. Makes sense to me. What's your problem? WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will freely admit to my genuine obsessions. I am quite frankly attached to the goal of seeing Wikipedia rise to a commendable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in media, especially when the subject of a mainspace article (or even a non-mainspace limited biographical sketch) is an identifiable living person. —Moulton (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Moulton:

The WP:AN which Giggy started is now 9 days old and 196 KB.

Here is the latest comment from someone who is coming in to the discussion for the first time:

Thank you very much for your insightful comments, Mr. Korn. See, here's the insight we really need - the educated opinion of a former arbitrator and veteran editor. Valtoras (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave Souza has filed a lengthy and comprehensive presentation of his POV in the current RfAR. A great deal of it impinges on the conflict between the WikiClique on Intelligent Design and several dissenting editors (including myself), especially in the wake of renewed interest in the Picard and Tour BLPs following my appearance on two or three episodes of Not the Wikipedia Weekly (WP:NTWW) and many discussions here on Wikipedia Review.

Dave Souza's presentation is rich with blue links, so I urge interested readers to attend to the on-Wiki original to descend them to the underlying references.

Evidence presented by dave souza

Cla68 added himself to a dispute about the Rosalind Picard article

Having decided to take a self-appointed interest in the "behavior" of some editors, Cla68 inserted himself into a dispute without taking part in any on-wiki discussion or having previously edited the article in question, and added an unnecessary and inflammatory "warning" to the talk page of an editor. He discussed the issues off-Wiki with other editors, making personal attacks and presenting a distorted image of his target editors who he stereotyped as a "group of POV-pushers" using alleged "thuggery", but failed to take any alleged problems through Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures which he knows are available.

Moulton caused considerable difficulty at the Rosalind Picard article by a tendentious refusal to work within Wikipedia policies,[21] and was indefinitely blocked. A stable version of the article agreed by all "sides" was reached on 8 December 2007,[22] but Moulton continued his campaign for changes at Wikipedia Review.

On 4 May 2008 Krimpet deleted a previously agreed sentence as "overly tangential and coatracky".[23] Moulton had objected to the sentence in earlier discussions. Krimpet contributes to Wikipedia Review but had not come to the article by a request from Moulton (according to Raul654 at AN/I and Moulton at WR.WR3).

When Orangemarlin reverted the edit as a "whitewash",[24] Krimpet reverted him and asked him for an explanation on his talk page, a post which Orangemarlin deleted using Twinkle.[25] There were successive article reversions by Krimpet, Orangemarlin, Nakon and Raul654, who then started discussions on the article talk page.[26] At 01:57 MZMcBride opened a new section on Orangemarlin's talk page announcing the removal of Twinkle from Orangemarlin's monobook.js page.[27] Discussion on this issue culminated in MZMcBride restoring Twinkle at 02:44, and demanding that "the personal attacks stop now".

At 02.22 Krimpet took the issue to AN/I without discussing it on the article talk page (AN/I archive) then at 04:10 advised Orangemarlin that she now saw the merits of leaving in the sentence she had deleted.[28]

Cla68, who had made no edits to the Picard article or talk page, joined the discussions at 04:15 by issuing what he called a Twinkle mis-use: formal warning on the preexisting "Twinkle mis-use" section on Orangemarlin's talk page, "OrangeMarlin, I haven't been involved in any way with this article in question, so I think I can ojectively tell you that you're behavior in this incident, including the incivility, misuse of Twinkle, and refusal to respond to dispute resolution, is out of line and unnaceptable. Some of it has been discussed here. Please consider this a formal warning." This appeared close under MZMcBride's statement closing the issue.[29] At 04:22 Cla68 reported this in his first edit to the AN/I discussion, saying "Hopefully, that and this thread will influence OM to correct his behavior."

A Wikipedia Review thread commented on these developments, and on the evening of 5 May a contributor asked if Picard had reported it to the press, suggesting it could be "another Seigenthaler scandal". At 6:28am, 6th May 2008, Cla68 posted that the Picard article was now "fairly NPOV... thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened", saying "The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery.." At 7:40am Moulton stated that he had described it to Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press.WR3 At 11:38pm, 6th May 2008, Cla68 posted "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.", introducing the idea of outing editors' real names.WR4

Rapid discussion at the Picard article, with useful new sources and various trial drafts, culminated with Guettarda consolidating a draft at 1:10, 8 May 2008, which achieved consensus by 15.59.[30]

At 17:33 that day Guettarda commented on Cla68's talk page that the Wikipedia Review post read like a threat to out people, and appeared "rather beyond the pale." At 00:40, 9 May 2008, Cla68 cross-posted the discussion on Guettarda's talk page, with his reply pointing at a "group of editors' behavior" as bringing "uninvolved editors and admins like me" in to varying degrees. (it should be noted that Cla68 is not an admin)[31] Cla68 then "clarified his remarks" in a post on Wikipedia Review, denying threatening to out anyone but commenting that a journalist has been told of the "antics" of "this group of POV-pushers" and would not "find it too difficult to learn of their real names", saying "the Wikipedia editors who created this issue with their problematic behavior have only themselves to blame."WR6 My advice to Cla68 at 08:31 was that before throwing around accusations about "POV pushing" he should be familiar with the background and circumstances of the case, and should follow dispute resolution procedures rather than getting involved in off-wiki sniping[32] At "6:19am" on the Wikipedia Review thread Cla68 made it clear that he was not fully familiar with what had happened, and had not looked at the ANI thread or the ArbCom.[WR6]

Cla68 suggested outing editors in off-wiki discussions

Despite being well aware of a previous ruling about off-wiki harassment and any suggestion of exposing identities which might disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life, Cla68 introduced the idea of exposing the identities of editors, specifically mentioning two against whom he had held a grudge since January 2008, and when questioned, while claiming that he had no control over what the press chooses to report on, insisted that he would continue to intervene if he perceived any "conduct problems", saying "I hope that the editors in question are willing and able to correct their behavior on their own." He claimed that he had been referring to an earlier post by Moulton, but in that post Moulton had merely said that he had tried unsuccessfully to get one journalist to run the story and others might be more interested. There was no suggestion of outing editors until Cla68 posted the idea.

Wikipedia Review provides a forum for discussing Wikipedia articles, policies and editors. It is open to indefinitely blocked former editors such as Moulton who promotes his views that core Wikipedia policies are dysfunctional.[33] Discussions about one editor preceded exposure of his identity, in the case Moulton referred to on 6th May 2008, 8:00am, when stating "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."WR3 Wikipedia relies on civil co-operation between editors with differing views to reach a mutually acceptable outcome, but discussions on Wikipedia Review divisively characterise groups, such as the post by Sxeptomaniac on 6th May 2008 at 10:53pm, which says "the anti-ID crew" "couldn't have an absolute victory at Picard's article". It refers to Moulton having had a valid reason for being upset with the articles' condition,WR4 but the Rosalind Picard article was stable from Sxeptomaniac's edit of 00:57, 8 December 2007, until Krimpet's edit of 15:42, 4 May 2008.[34] From what I have seen, it seems likely that Krimpet was genuinely persuaded by Moulton's posts and the gossip at Wikipedia Review that the Picard article was unfair, and when she looked at it deleted a sentence she thought was coatracking without first reading the talk page and realising that it was a carefully negotiated consensus version.

Cla68 has never edited the Picard article or talk page. He joined Wikipedia Review on 18 April 2008.[WR4] To justify his raising the idea of "OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends" having their real names in the press, he referred to his having left some comments in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch case [in January 2008] and indicated that his motive was getting these editors to change their behavior with statements such as "I hope that the editors in question are willing and able to correct their behavior on their own."[35] The final decision in that case included the following principles –

* 3) The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.
* 4) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.[36]

On his talk page, Cla68 continued to defend his interventions regarding others' behavior up to his post of 00:14, 10 May 2008, "I'm sorry to see you trying to put lipstick on this situation. Like I said, if there aren't any more conduct problems (edit warring, canvassing, etc) related to ID articles, then I leave it alone."[37]

Discussion continued on Cla68's talk page, but he didn't comment until 06:09, 13 May 2008, "I think I explained it already, but in case anyone reads this thread and can't find my explanation, my remarks on Wikipedia Review were in reference to this post [17], not a threat to out anyone. I apologize for not choosing my words more carefully."[38]" The link is to Moulton's post of 7:40am, 6th May 2008, in which Moulton said that he had failed to interest Bergstein in the story, but his guess was that "Cade Metz or Seth Finkelstein would be more likely to pick this story up." There had been no further discussion of the story getting into the press until Cla68's post of 11:38pm, 6th May 2008, which introduced the idea of outing project ID editors' real names. As shown below, an early post by Moulton included a quotation from a post by Krimpet on an earlier thread which mentioned outing, but this was to express her disquiet at her process rather than to hint at it being used in a dispute over behavior.

Krimpet's evidence alleging bullying by FeloniousMonk

Krimpet describes herself as trying "to fix a coatracky BLP... which focused too much on one event in her life without putting it in context, only to find I'd walked into a landmine of controversy between the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, of which FeloniousMonk was a member, with an indefinitely blocked user, User:Moulton." She describes evidence placed on Moulton's page alleging that he had recruited her as a meatpuppet as "a direct and insulting personal attack".[39] This has also been described in discussion as a "smear".[40]

As shown in my earlier evidence, Moulton was indefinitely blocked due to disruption, particularly on the Rosalind Picard article which Krimpet describes as "a coatracky BLP". His campaign to change that article then moved to Wikipedia Review, and his article there dated April 5, 2008, “So I am disgusted with Wikipedia.”, gives his version of "the problems he encountered improving the Wikipedia biography of colleague Rosalind Picard". The Wikipedia Review thread cited by Cla68 includes a post by Moulton dated 5th May 2008, 5:34am, which quotes a post by Krimpet of 27th April 2008, 7:39pm, in reply to Moulton's remark earlier that day "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." Krimpet's reply says "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 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."WR1

When Krimpet first edited the Picard article at 15:42, 4 May 2008,[41] she removed a sentence that had been a stable consensus since 8 December 2007, as edited by Sxeptomaniac.[42] When Orangemarlin reverted her changes at 00:39 as Removed whitewash.using TW,[43] she reverted his edit[44] and opened a section on his talk page summarised as if you have a problem with my revision of the paragraph, please explain your actions in depth,[45] which he later deleted.[46] Had she looked at the article talk page instead of going to Orangemarlin's talk page, she would have seen that it had last been edited by Sxeptomaniac at 00:55, 8 December 2007, with the first section headed Getting a consensus showing amicable discussions between editors holding a wide range of views, clearly not just the alleged "anti-ID group", carefully considering the BLP implications, the need to assess notability and the need to avoid original research. Deletion of the article as insufficiently notable was considered. The most recent section, Undue weight, was started by Sxeptomaniac to question the sentence now under debate, and concluded with Sxeptomaniac saying "I'm not completely convinced that the summary is necessary, as the links to the Discovery Institute and Dissent from Darwinism articles offer quick access to further explanation, but that's a reasonable point to consider." The detailed answer to her question to Orangemarlin was there, but Krimpet did not explain her change on the article talk page.

At 01:40, the same time that Krimpet added her comment to his talk page, Orangemarlin reverted her article revert,[47] and at 01:51 Nakon reverted to Krimpet version, reverted in turn three minutes later by Raul654.[48] who promptly started discussion on the article talk page.[49] Krimpet did not join the discussion on the article talk page or the continuing discussion at Orangemarlin's page, but at 02.22 opened an AN/I discussion accusing Orangemarlin of "tag-teaming" (AN/I archive) and notified Orangemarlin at 02:30. At 04:10 Krimpet joined discussion at Orangemarlin's talk page, and conceded that having discussed matters with Raul654 she now saw the merits of leaving in the sentence she had deleted.[50] On AN/I it was questioned if Krimpet had been asked there by Moulton to make the edit, and at 04:31 Raul654 reported that she had given him an assurance on IRC, which he believed, that this was not how she came by the article. On a Wikipedia Review thread on 6 May Moulton said "For the record, I had no direct contact with Krimpet", though they both "posted similar views in the NewYorkBrad thread."[51]

Thus, Krimpet had been in discussion with Moulton about BLP concerns, and is likely to have been aware of his allegations about problems on the Picard article, but does not seem to have been asked directly by him to make the edit. However, her actions reflect his preferences and showed no signs of paying heed to the consensus discussions on the article talk page. Wikipedia Review clearly acted as a divisive influence in overturning normal collegiate working on Wikipedia. Whether this means that Moulton was contravening Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets I leave others to judge, but clearly it caused misunderstandings and disruption.

Krimpet also refers to what she calls "a slew off harrowing insults from WikiProject ID members". The link is to a thread on her tolk opened by Guettarda at 02:38, 5 May, who was the only WikiProject ID member taking part in the discussion, against a slew of Krimpet's friends. His opening query "Why not use the article's talk page before AN/I? Isn't that the way we do it here?" and later suspicions when "one WR editor shows up out of the blue and makes the edits a banned WR editor was making" appear reasonable in light of the evidence, but the part Krimpet has played on Wikipedia Review is not known to me. The effect of her intervention was obviously disruptive, and experienced editors should know to check any assertions made in that forum carefully before basing edits here on them, as well as explaining their edits on article talk pages.

Misrepresentations in evidence presented by User:B

The evidence presented by User:B [52] opens [opened] with a misrepresentation of the Arbcom ruling on which the arguments it presents are based: B says [said] "FeloniousMonk was previously admonished by arbcom not to use the administrative tools in content areas where he is involved", but the ruling says "FeloniousMonk is admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved."[53] [B has now corrected the cite from the ruling, but still makes the following claim] It follows that B's claim that "FM's admin actions in the last year relate to the Intelligent Design topic area in some way" is irrelevant, the question is as to whether FM was involved in the specific content disputes. From a quick look, some of B's examples show misrepresentations and blatant inaccuracies:

* The article protections on 13 May to Rosalind Picard and James Tour are [were] presented with the claim that not a single editor who would be affected by semi-protection had edited the articles, but both articles had just been edited to match Moulton's agenda,[54][55] by new user:PlatanusOccidentalis who subsequently admitted editing for Moulton,[56] and was later blocked indefinitely for trolling and abusing multiple accounts by Jayjg.[57] [B now asserts that "FM had no way of knowing that at the time", but FM had correctly assessed the situation and warned the new user as well as taking minimal action to avoid disruption from further meatpuppets.]

* "4 May 2008 - Indefinite block of an IP" fails to note that the IP had already been blocked twice for ‎Personal attacks or harassment and disruptive editing, and that FM offered on the user talk page to unblock if a commitment was given to abide by behaviour policies.[58] [I am glad to note that B no longer alleges that this is abuse of the tools. It's a matter of opinion as to whether or not it was a correct call.]

* The Blocks of Schlafly section neglects to mention that Schlafly had a long history of COI violations while refusing to co-operate with other editors, as is obvious from a brief look at Talk:Phyllis Schlafly, and provides no evidence that FM was involved in the specific content disputes. [B has left his assertions unchanged: it should be noted that Schlafly has been repeatedly warned about COI violations,[59][60][61] but has chosen to dismiss warnings and has refused to co-operate with other editors.[62] ]

* "21 September 2007 - Indefinite block of Ferrylodge (talk · contribs), a block which a previous arbitration held was inappropriate." is flatly wrong – the linked arbitration opened on 15 October 2007, and closed on 29 November 2007. [B now shows the correct sequence: the block was make on the basis of "Broad support for ban at WP:CSN", and was subsequently appealed to Arbcom which reached the decision that the ban was invalid due to lack of an appropriate degree of discussion and consensus building, but imposed an indefinite editing restriction on Ferrylodge]

It is clear that there are competing interpretations of the evidence, and competing theories of intent, especially regarding the question of whether Cla68 had been making a plausible scientific prediction of the likelihood of press interest in this case, or an express threat to personally summon the press if the adversarial editors in the WikiClique on Intelligent Design failed to retreat from their aggressive tactics in silencing, intimidating, and marginalizing editors unsympathetic to their POV.

Well, there you go. Efforts to unfairly slant BLP articles so as to defame and distort the facts of a person's career are "normal collegiate working" on Wikipedia.

We knew that all along, of course... It's just nice to see them admit it every once in a while!

(Though I think he meant to use the word "collegial," not "collegiate."

Well, there you go. Efforts to unfairly slant BLP articles so as to defame and distort the facts of a person's career are "normal collegiate working" on Wikipedia.

We knew that all along, of course... It's just nice to see them admit it every once in a while!

(Though I think he meant to use the word "collegial," not "collegiate."

I feel some distress for Krimpet here, who clearly stepped on a land mine when she sought to bring the Picard biography into compliance with WP policies as she reckoned them.

Were the culture of WP as collegial and congenial as I would have liked, I have little doubt that Krimpet's edits could have gracefully concluded without fanfare or kerfuffle to bring the biography to a state of accuracy and quality that would have satisfied all but the most obtuse of POV-pushers.

Well, there you go. Efforts to unfairly slant BLP articles so as to defame and distort the facts of a person's career are "normal collegiate working" on Wikipedia.

We knew that all along, of course... It's just nice to see them admit it every once in a while!

(Though I think he meant to use the word "collegial," not "collegiate."

Don't be so sure, Somey. Maybe Souza went to Defamation University, home of The Dastardly Defamers.

(IMG:http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1125000/images/_1125708_mut.jpg)

"Defamation U.! Defamation U.! Goooooooooooooooo Defamers!"

Wikipedia Review clearly acted as a divisive influence in overturning normal collegiate working on Wikipedia. Whether this means that Moulton was contravening Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets I leave others to judge, but clearly it caused misunderstandings and disruption.

Let there be no misunderstand here.

This is the article when Moulton first encountered it, after many months of "normal collegiate working on Wikipedia" between these editors :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=152465684


This is the article after Moulton raised his issues "causing disruption" to the article, and after the Wikipedia Review "acted as a divisive influence in overturning normal collegiate working on Wikipedia":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Picard

Well, there you go. Efforts to unfairly slant BLP articles so as to defame and distort the facts of a person's career are "normal collegiate working" on Wikipedia.

We knew that all along, of course … It's just nice to see them admit it every once in a while!

(Though I think he meant to use the word "collegial", not "collegiate".)

Don't be so sure, Somey. Maybe Souza went to Defamation University, home of The Dastardly Defamers.

(IMG:http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1125000/images/_1125708_mut.jpg)

"Defamation U.! Defamation U.! Goooooooooooooooo Defamers!"

Maybe the Goils Team was called that, but everbuddy know that the Adhockey Team was called the Nasty Aspersion Defamers (NADS).

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

The Picard bio is almost to consensus now.

There remains just two corrections.

One is the correction that I had previously suggested in these pages.

As I recall User:PlatanusOccidentalis tried to make that edit and was reverted and rebuffed. Moreover, I now discover via his talk page that he is not a stranger to me, after all. This drama is like Great Expectations, a Dickensian novel in which young and old characters are more deeply related than is at first apparent.

As to the final improvement to the bio, in the wake of the major rewrite by Ottava Rima, I don't have the details.

Last night the Picards invited me to dinner, and I finally had a chance to talk to Roz (who had been in London at an Autism conference all last week). I asked her if she had yet had a chance to look at the biography since the last major round of edits. She said she had taken a quick look and that there were a few small things to fix, but she hadn't had time to send a note to Kim Bruning detailing them.

And so I spent another delightful evening with Roz and Len Picard and their remarkably bright and energetic children whom I dearly love to romp with.

From the talk page of User:PlatanusOccidentalis...

Welcome!

Hello, PlatanusOccidentalis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

* The five pillars of Wikipedia
* Tutorial
* How to edit a page
* How to write a great article
* Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Undoing a recent consensus?

Based on the fact that your first two mainspace articles were to revert hard-won consensus Rosalind Picard and James Tour, the only two articles subject of a disruptive campaign organized at Wikipedia Review by a banned user, followed by a comment at User:Filll that appears to trolling, I'm issuing you this warning: If you continue to undo the fragile consensus at these two articles I will take it as evidence of your intent engage in disruptive editing and trolling rather than constructive contributions and will follow the steps outlined at WP:DE to stop the disruption, which may include a block or permanent ban. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Meatpuppetry

User:Moulton is an indefinitely banned editor, and his ban was in large part due to his edits to Rosalind Picard vis-a-vis the petition. Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets not only strongly discourages editing on the behalf of banned editors, but provides for the original remedy applied to the banned user, his ban, to extend to his meatpuppets as well: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining."

After taking a look at your history and that of indef banned editor Moulton who has been recruiting and advising meatpuppets at Wikipedia Review on editing the Picard article in his place, I see that your edits here [1] exactly matches word-for-word the edits User:Moulton calls for someone there to make on his behalf: [2] Should you repeat the edits Moulton calls for at Rosalind Picard and James Tour Moulton's ban will be extended to cover you as well per Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. I was not recruited, I chose to do so. Filll and you chose to accuse me of meatpuppetry. PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets fails to recognize such a distinction, and walking in the footsteps of a banned user has been the sole necessary and sufficient grounds for extending bans to meatpuppets in both arbcom precedent and community convention. You've gotten very poor advice from Moulton; I suggest steering clear of the articles he's recruiting others to edit on his behalf. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to act on Moulton's behalf (that just happened to be my first edits' purpose) and I will begin contributing other than that. PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Trolling and abusing multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely for trolling and abusing multiple accounts. See Special:Contributions/ACCWBHB and Special:Contributions/Mantan_Samuel_I._Harris_Moreland%27s_Last_Exit Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Note how FeloniousMonk uses an anankastic conditional as a bullying remark, signaling his intent to falsely accuse PlatanusOccidentalis of violating some convenient Kiboshnikov rule that enables FM to clobber a 12-yr old editor who is editing to improve the content of the encyclopedia in good faith and good conscience.

"We Know Drama" —Advertising Slogan of the TNT Cable Channel

This colloquy from the talk page of the Evidence Page of the epic RfAr (the one with a cast of thousands) reveals something about how learning takes place in the place where they do things "the way they do things there".

Comment concerning the ID Wikiproject

Take a step back and think about it from other points of view. Of course, if you want to simply blow it all off as the work of malcontents, I suppose it's your choice. No, of course not. I'm sure that WR is chock full of content editors like yourself who insist on lofty, polite, constructive conversation. Of course, that's all hidden in the hidden forums that Krimpet talks about higher up the page (funny, that someone who registers only to read "hidden forums" usesWR to engage in attacks on SlimVirgin, but I'm sure Krimpet meant this in the most high-minded and polite manner that all participants of that use).

Sxeptomaniac, you've made post after post on WR attacking various editors over here. You've gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good.* Quite frankly, It's you're right to hang out with whatever crowd of malcontents you choose. But if you choose to sleep in filth, don't be offended when other people hold their nose when talking to you. Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"You've gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good." That is a lie. I demand you provide evidence for this supposed statement or retract and apologize now. I will not stand for you attempting to assassinate my character in such a way. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a "lie" is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. If I misinterpreted your comments at WR that you were considering engage in pro-ID editing, then by all means I'd be interested to know what you were talking about. I'd be happy to have a civil, adult discussion, just as soon as you remove your personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a "lie" is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. If I misinterpreted your comments at WR that you were considering engage in pro-ID editing, then by all means I'd be interested to know what you were talking about. I'd be happy to have a civil, adult discussion that might allow me to re-evaluate my interpretation of your comment...just as soon as you remove your personal attacks. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 02:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a "lie" is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. If I misinterpreted your comments at WR that you were considering engage in pro-ID editing, then by all means I'd be interested to know what you were talking about. After you strike your personal attacks, you can explain to me what it is that is wrong with my interpretation of your comments. Thanks. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 03:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

* If a simple observation what I said provokes that kind of anger and venom, it's distracting from its purpose, which is clear communication. I have removed it. Now please remove your personal attacks. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

*[Deleted]What I said [Deleted] distracts from its purpose, which is clear communication. I have removed it. Now please remove your personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, WADR, you have made an accusation and need to either back it up with a link or completely withdraw it and not just say the equivalent of "I'm sorry you lost your temper". I have no idea if it's true or not - but calling it a "simple observation" and leaving the unproven accusation hanging out there isn't going to resolve anything. --B (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK B, the words are gone. As I said, it's a distraction. It does nothing to further the conversation. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. B! You're lecturing me? You? The guy who put a string of outright falsehoods in your evidence, which when Dave called you on them, you replaced them with claims that merely twist the facts? You are lecturing me? OK, so I'm being lectured by the experts here. Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Not constructive, leave it alone

Please link WADR for the rest of WP/. BTW, observations, especially keen ones, are priceless. •Jim62sch•dissera! 05:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WADR = with all due respect. If the observation is true, it needs to be supported with a diff or a link to a WR message. If it is false, it needs to be retracted. --B (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Registering an account to edit Wikipedia: $0.00. Participating in an ArbCom case: $0.00. Making keen observations: Priceless! *Dan T.* (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, you accused me of doing something that goes against my principles, so I will not let you squirm out of this. I see no other logical explanation than that it is a lie, unless you can somehow bring evidence otherwise. It is not a personal attack if it is true, therefore, one of us has committed a personal attack, and the other has stated the truth. It is now your turn to prove which one of us that is. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 07:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, I believe you have two options here: back it up or withdraw it. Trying to exercise an ephemeral third option, which is avoiding accountability for what you have said, really isn't an option, because it doesn't answer the question. So, which do you choose? Anything less than providing evidence as requested or withdrawing your statement means you are attempting to choose option 3. The floor is yours. Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[Irony meter broken. This from someone who has yet to renounce his threats to out other editors. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)]Not constructive, leave it alone

Per WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry and lying.
I do not believe I have made any statement that could reasonably be interpreted to say what you claim. Therefore, I have responded based on what is, by far, the most logical possibility. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We could draw the same inferences about your statements Sxeptomaniac, or about Cla68's statements, by that reasoning. Why try to escalate this? As I said, there are lots of ways to interpret statements. And WR is not a good source really, for the reasons I stated. And this is not some formal inquiry looking into your behavior, is it? --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not read any posts on Wikipedia Review that Guettarda is referring to. However, I think it is a bit much to demand that he produce "evidence" from a site that locks threads, that has control over what is displayed, can edit content, etc. Wikipedia Review is not Wikipedia. Any material on Wikipedia Review can summarily disappear or be changed with no record. I will also note that it is quite normal for people to interpret things two different ways. Perhaps Sχeptomaniac meant it in a completely different way than it appeared to Guettarda. This is not evidence of mendacity on Guettarda's part, and surely it stretches the bounds of credulity to claim such a thing. This seems like an unnecessary and unseemly escalation of wikidrama. --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, Guettarda specifically said that Sxeptomaniac had threatened to add pro-ID material. If he has no evidence for this, he shouldn't have said it. Meanwhile, you and he continue to wax lyrical about perceived threats, while you very clearly threatened the anonymity of another editor,[5] and he seemed to have no problem with it. Perhaps there would be a lot less wikidrama if you hadn't come here for the second time to escalate conflict over a perceived infraction that you've very recently engaged in? I think that might have helped. Mackan79 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

He say that Sxeptomaniac had made posts to Wikipedia Review that appear to him to advocate that. Of course, these things are always open to interpretation. And he is supposed to have diffs and evidence for an informal comment? This is supposed to be a formal inquiry about Sxeptomaniac? I thought it was about Cla68 and others. In any case, even if Sxeptomaniac did advocate including more pro-ID material, so what? Who cares? If that is his agenda, then he is free to pursue it of course. Why isn't he?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda said that Sxeptomaniac had made posts to Wikipedia Review that appeared to him to advocate that. Of course, these things are always open to interpretation. And Guettarda is supposed to have diffs and evidence for an informal comment? This is supposed to be a formal inquiry about Sxeptomaniac? I thought it was about Cla68 and others. Do I have that wrong?

In any case, even if Sxeptomaniac did advocate including more pro-ID material, so what? Who cares? If that is his agenda, then he is free to pursue it of course. Why isn't he?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

* while you very clearly threatened the anonymity of another editor,[6]

I did not threaten KTC's anonymity. I made it clear that this editor has posted copious amounts of material on the internet. He is well known on the internet and his point of view is well known. I will not "out" him, even if knew his true life identity (which I do not, and I will not try to discover). I will not "out" anyone because I think that damages the community (that is part of what this entire proceeding is about, is it not?).

When KTC brought it up later, I made it clear that I apologized for any offense that I had caused. And he accepted that apology.[7] What is wrong with that?

* Perhaps there would be a lot less wikidrama if you hadn't come here for the second time to escalate conflict over a perceived infraction that you've very recently engaged in? I think that might have helped.

Pardon me? What are you talking about? Are you suggesting I am not welcome to defend myself on these evidence pages? Would you summarily ban me from this case, which I am involved in? Is this not exactly part of what Cla68 is apparently trying to do, or at least is accused of doing, to try to summarily unilaterally ban other users from certain pages, certain topics and even Wikipedia itself? Perhaps you might want to rephrase that so there is no confusion. I am sure you would not be suggesting such a thing, right here on the evidence talk page.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he's suggesting that that type of hysterical, over-the-top reaction (to a calm suggestion that you exhibit some self-restraint!) promotes wikidrama. At least for now: I imagine the time when people routinely ignore you is not far off. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, did you think it was hysterical? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) --Relata refero (disp.) 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm back from the weekend, and I see Guettarda has chosen to ignore the issue. I've got a grand total of 53 posts at WR at this point, so it wouldn't be hard to dig up the proof, if it existed. I want to make it abundantly clear that Guettarda made no "observation"; it was made up. I do this because I do not want to see the lie repeated in the future as a supposed fact. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Now if Kato would kindly deconstruct the dramahz so that Somey could make a pithy comment about, all would be well with the world.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Paste A Phreakin Link, Moulton, The Wikipedia Review Is Not Some Kind Of Wikipedia Mirror Site!

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

Paste A Phreakin Link, Moulton, The Wikipedia Review Is Not Some Kind Of Wikipedia Mirror Site!

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

There is no single link, Jon. You have to step, piecewise, through a long sequence of edits to see how comments are made, challenged, partially retracted, challenged again, and eventually redacted. It's a remarkable dynamic process that unsays things that had previously been said.

I haven't yet figured out how making stuff up fosters "clear communication", though. However, I can't say I'm surprised Guettarda immediately tried to get me to remove my "personal attack". The whole attempt to get me to remove the accusation so that we could have a "civil, adult discussion" was absurd. You don't discuss something that's just plain untrue; you confront it. I believe Guettarda would have been smarter to offer a quick retraction and apology, as it would probably be less damaging to his reputation in the long run.

Filll's responses are just strange, IMO.

In any case, even if Sxeptomaniac did advocate including more pro-ID material, so what? Who cares? If that is his agenda, then he is free to pursue it of course. Why isn't he?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll seems to be using the "it's no big deal" strategy a lot lately.

It's really quite fascinating to deconstruct the practices of those who, as near as I can tell, are operating from flawed (if not downright delusional) belief systems. One thing stands out for me. They are not adhering to the strictures of the scientific method; they are not grounding their assertions in evidence-based reasoning.

Picking this up where it left off...

Comment concerning the ID Wikiproject

I'm back from the weekend, and I see Guettarda has chosen to ignore the issue. I've got a grand total of 53 posts at WR at this point, so it wouldn't be hard to dig up the proof, if it existed. I want to make it abundantly clear that Guettarda made no "observation"; it was made up. I do this because I do not want to see the lie repeated in the future as a supposed fact. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked that you strike your personal attacks. Instead you choose to repeat them. This does not come across as a serious attempt to resolve this issue. If you think I misunderstood what you said, then by all means we can discuss this further - as soon as you stop engaging in silly name-calling and personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, I don't believe you're entitled to make unsupported accusations about someone and then refuse to support your accusation when they call it a lie; in fact it seems like extremely inappropriate behavior from an administrator or any other editor, for that matter. Mackan79 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not making an accusation, supported or unsupported. I removed the statement - it wasn't helping the conversation. The point was that Sxeptomaniac's behaviour at WR undercuts his/her credibility here. His (her?) response to that was a slew of personal attacks. I see no point in further engagement with someone who chooses to ignore policy and the basics of civil discourse. Once s/he calms down and starts behaving appropriately, I would be interested in exploring what it was that was wrong with my interpretation of his/her statement, if that's what s/he wants. But, as I said, it's a distraction, nothing more. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making an accusation, and a false one at that. I will not "explore" something that isn't true, even if it were possible to do so. I'm dealing exactly as one should in the face of a falsehood.
At this time, I'm taking this up on a more appropriate page. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And so the issue migrates to WP:AN/I.

Picking this up where it left off...

Comment concerning the ID Wikiproject

I'm back from the weekend, and I see Guettarda has chosen to ignore the issue. I've got a grand total of 53 posts at WR at this point, so it wouldn't be hard to dig up the proof, if it existed. I want to make it abundantly clear that Guettarda made no "observation"; it was made up. I do this because I do not want to see the lie repeated in the future as a supposed fact. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked that you strike your personal attacks. Instead you choose to repeat them. This does not come across as a serious attempt to resolve this issue. If you think I misunderstood what you said, then by all means we can discuss this further - as soon as you stop engaging in silly name-calling and personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, I don't believe you're entitled to make unsupported accusations about someone and then refuse to support your accusation when they call it a lie; in fact it seems like extremely inappropriate behavior from an administrator or any other editor, for that matter. Mackan79 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not making an accusation, supported or unsupported. I removed the statement - it wasn't helping the conversation. The point was that Sxeptomaniac's behaviour at WR undercuts his/her credibility here. His (her?) response to that was a slew of personal attacks. I see no point in further engagement with someone who chooses to ignore policy and the basics of civil discourse. Once s/he calms down and starts behaving appropriately, I would be interested in exploring what it was that was wrong with my interpretation of his/her statement, if that's what s/he wants. But, as I said, it's a distraction, nothing more. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making an accusation, and a false one at that. I will not "explore" something that isn't true, even if it were possible to do so. I'm dealing exactly as one should in the face of a falsehood.
At this time, I'm taking this up on a more appropriate page. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And so the issue migrates to WP:AN/I.

...and the ID Crowd create a false image of consensus against the complaint by joining in the discussion. So ID Crowd tactics, smear an editor, deny smearing an editor, and work as a group to fend off any complaint.

Tomorrow, we'll do the theory part of Pattern Recognition.

So those of you who are allergic to theory, be sure to have your faux illness planned out in advance and a forged note from Mommy pretending to explain why you will not have been in school that day.

...and the ID Crowd create a false image of consensus against the complaint by joining in the discussion. So ID Crowd tactics, smear an editor, deny smearing an editor, and work as a group to fend off any complaint.

You forgot the part where they accuse the smeared editor of smearing them, and being a bully.

...and the ID Crowd create a false image of consensus against the complaint by joining in the discussion. So ID Crowd tactics, smear an editor, deny smearing an editor, and work as a group to fend off any complaint.

You forgot the part where they accuse the smeared editor of smearing them, and being a bully.

Yep, I sincerely apologise for that misrepresentation (just to be on the safe side of this fearsome advisory (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ).

I notice that we have a quorum of the crowd now present working in harmony to present their view. It would be appropriate for them to declare that they are not independent of the dispute.

...and the ID Crowd create a false image of consensus against the complaint by joining in the discussion. So ID Crowd tactics, smear an editor, deny smearing an editor, and work as a group to fend off any complaint.

You forgot the part where they accuse the smeared editor of smearing them, and being a bully.

Yep, I sincerely apologise for that misrepresentation (just to be on the safe side of this fearsome advisory (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ).

I notice that we have a quorum of the crowd now present working in harmony to present their view. It would be appropriate for them to declare that they are not independent of the dispute.

Ah yes. I've never been accused of being a bully before, so I'm not quite sure what to do now that I apparently have the ability to be intimidating. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I expect that little essay will be quite popular when anyone brings up a complaint in the future, so I kinda doubt it's the last time I've seen that link (unless someone develops an on-site essay, of course). It's actually not a bad essay... too bad it's going to be horribly abused.

I knew I'd get at least three of the group at AN/I, besides Guettarda. I was prepared for the probability that it would turn out the way that it did, but I think the effort was necessary.

One is left wondering where some of these flights of fancy come from. I mean I can understand misreading something (e.g. FM misread my 5-digit registration serial number on Slashdot as the number of posts I'd made), but it would be useful to know which something is subject to misinterpretation so as to guard against that in the future. Otherwise, it looks like some of these flights of fancy are indistinguishable from hallucinations.

Gnixon responds to Dave Souza in the discussion page on the newest RfC/ID...

I maintain that Moulton's valid concerns could have been addressed without relying upon OR or otherwise compromising our policies. The tactics used to silence him were shameful. Gnixon (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The tactics and practices adopted and employed by the WikiClique on ID were not only shameful, they were manifestly iatrogenic — ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst.

The persistent failure to diagnose and eliminate iatrogenic practices is a hallmark of Homo Politicus.

It is up to Homo Scientificus to supplant iatrogenic practices with innovative new practices, enroute to best ethical practices.

In the meantime, it is up to Homo Ludens to humorously spotlight the ludicrous and shameful stumblings of Homo Politicus.

Update: Giggy responds to Dave Souza and GNixon...

We just need to find a better way of communicating all this, one which gives Moulton a chance to learn our ways and change his ways based on them, rather than kicking him out dazed and confused. (And it's not just Moulton, but that's a relevant example. The whole point is that, in general, some people aren't fond of the way some people do things — that's the problem that I'd love to help fix.) giggy ((IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)) 11:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What I learned (much to my horror and chagrin) was the shameful way the ID Editors railroaded me off the system. WAS 4.250 likened it to a "mugging in Central Park." If the mainstream community at Wikipedia wish for me to learn ways that I deem collegial, congenial, and ethical, I am prepared to wait for however long it takes for the English Wikipedia community at large to demonstrate those ways, whereupon I will gladly join them, going forward, from that happy day.

Second Update: Filll chimes in with more fascinating theory of mind...

What I think you are ignoring here, is that Moulton has done this over and over and over on different online communities. He has appeared, tried to disrupt them and then been banned from one after another, for many years. This is fun for him. He does it on purpose. He wants to cause trouble and fights and disruption (and we have plenty of evidence, if you missed that part). So you can try to "reform" Moulton all you like. Just do it somewhere else, and do not make someone else clean up the mess he creates. Ok, fair enough?--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. So let's have Filll's evidence and reasoning to support his remarkable theory of mind here. And then let's have some scientific peer review of his original theory.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Now we are ready for the big dig-down.

Filll writes on the RfC/ID talk page:

How about you start with this, and then answer my 8 questions?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I really wish some budding young scientist would undertake the big dig-down to discover what's really there, in that off-Wiki material that FeloniousMonk evidently believes is so devastatingly condemnatory of my character. Are FM and Filll willing to interview the two or three critics they are relying on there and adopt them as allies in their cause to discredit me? If so, the dramahz will become verrry interesting.

I'm off to the Museum of Science for the rest of the day, and then to a baby shower tonight, so I will be offline until late tonight.

I thought bringing in nasty personal attacks from off-wiki sites was something only evil harassers did? Or is that true only when the person being attacked is favored by the WikiClique?

I'm off to the Museum of Science for the rest of the day, and then to a baby shower tonight, so I will be offline until late tonight.

Paradisio THEN Purgatorio? That ain't the way to enjoy a day.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

I thought bringing in nasty personal attacks from off-wiki sites was something only evil harassers did? Or is that true only when the person being attacked is favored by the WikiClique?

If done by the Wikiclique it's called "citing verifiable sources". If by anyone else, esp. WR, it is called, "harassing, stalking and .... violence-invoking hate-crime-sort-of-stuff".

DL

I thought bringing in nasty personal attacks from off-wiki sites was something only evil harassers did? Or is that true only when the person being attacked is favored by the WikiClique?

If done by the Wikiclique it's called "citing verifiable sources". If by anyone else, esp. WR, it is called, "harassing, stalking and .... violence-invoking hate-crime-sort-of-stuff".

DL

Ah yes, verifiable sources. Which is why I wish somebody with editing privilege on the RfC/ID talk page would ask Filll and/or FM to identify the "verifiable sources" they are relying on (and perhaps enlisting as their allies in this remarkable intarwebs opera).

Meantime, since I am not at liberty to post directly on RfC/ID, I have interpolated my own otherwise unseen comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Answers

From the Drama Theory thread of the International Digest Forum at WorldCrossing.Com ...

Montana Mouse - Jun 15, 2008 10:21 am (#2356 of 2358)
I never signed up to be an Internet movie star.

Previously, Schadenfreude Theatre presented a pair of seemingly unrelated operas, one entitled Fear and Loathing in Lost Vagueness and one entitled No One Expects the Spammish Inquisition!. These were in addition to another Soap Opera entitled, Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination, which featured Bela, Klaatu, Moulton, and a variety of walk-on cameos by various and sundry characters from the Original ATI/RI/PDR Soap Opera which Bela kicked off some five years ago.

Now the third opera in the Ring of the Neener Bomb is getting underway at the English Wikipedia. This one is tentatively called The Final Absolution and promises to have considerably better music than that previously provided by Barsoom Tork Associates.

To kick things off, a Wikipedian who goes by the name of Filll has posed the following invitation:

How about you start with this, and then answer my 8 questions?

The reference to the starting point is a scathing Indictment of Moulton lodged by another prominent Wikipedian, an admin who goes by the name of FeloniousMonk.

I thought bringing in nasty personal attacks from off-wiki sites was something only evil harassers did? Or is that true only when the person being attacked is favored by the WikiClique?

If done by the Wikiclique it's called "citing verifiable sources". If by anyone else, esp. WR, it is called, "harassing, stalking and .... violence-invoking hate-crime-sort-of-stuff".

DL

Ah yes, verifiable sources. Which is why I wish somebody with editing privilege on the RfC/ID talk page would ask Filll and/or FM to identify the "verifiable sources" they are relying on (and perhaps enlisting as their allies in this remarkable intarwebs opera).

Meantime, since I am not at liberty to post directly on RfC/ID, I have interpolated my own otherwise unseen comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Answers

"Will the defendant answer the 8 interrogatory questions?"

"All such questions appear to be either regarding my conduct on other fora, which is prejudicial and in any case non-germane, or else my work to clean up a coat-rack BLP in accord with stringent guidelines on the subject, of which you must be aware, and subsequent outcomes and fights about that. That is, the other matters are an outgrowth of my failure to be able to clean up a BLP. But this reflects more poorly on my opponents than upon me, since it was I who was following the major guidelines of Wikipedia regarding BLP, not they. Would you be willing answer my own 8 questions regarding your own specific failures to follow Wikipedia's BLP policies in the matter of Piccard and others?"

See how it works? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

It appears that two or three of the adversarial editors have partially redacted the evidence which I submitted in the above-linked subpage.

Good Grief

See the bottom of my talk page, AN/I, and the Media Ethics blog.

Update: There is continuing discussion at AN/I, but no consensus yet among Admins.

Several issues are still up in the air...

1. Did Filll freely disclose his Yahoo Mail name when he initiated E-Mail contact with such people as Eugenie Scott and Alexandra Kahn?

2. Did Filll also freely disclose his Yahoo Mail name on the WP:NTWW Skypecasts?

3. Given that Filll expressly challenged Gnixon and Dtobias on the RfC/ID to respond both to his 8 Questions and to FM's Indictment of Moulton, shouldn't both the Indictment and the Answers (or Redacted Answers) I provided (which WAS 4.250 linked to on the RfC/ID) remain in evidence rather than being summarily deleted by an Admin who is unfamiliar with the case?

4. Am I entitled to answer FM's Indictment on the various RfC's or RfAr's where FM and/or Filll referenced it?

5. There is no fifth issue just yet. But I expect there will be, soon enough

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Yesterday, User:Skomorokh took the initiative to clean up the false and defamatory content in List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". So far, FeloniousMonk has not community banned him.

Here is a snippet from the now-deleted AN/I thread on Mayhem and FM...

Where has Moulton reacted to being recently blocked for not following the advice of Lar and others? If he has decided that he now wants to be anonymous, I have not seen any indication of it. Show me a diff please.

As for vexatious litigation, have I filed an RfAr against anyone for being a member of some amorphous group? Yes I certified an RfC against a group but only in response to multiple RfCs and an RfAr against another group of which I was a member, and then only because I wanted to have a vehicle to produce a wider range of evidence against all the parties involved, instead of only against a select body guilty of "thought crimes". I have not made serious accusations and threatened a "sh*t storm" and then not produced any evidence to back up my accusations in the following month. As far as I can tell, all this drama was created just for the purposes of intimidation and harassment against some mythical cabal of "political enemies" that the grousing Wikipedia Review overlords have decided are ripe for elimination. So tell me where I have engaged in vexatious litigation? By the way, defense of oneself in the face of repeated attacks does not constitute vexatious litigation. I get tired of being told over and over that even suggesting that I should be allowed to defend myself constitutes an "attack" somehow or is "unfair".

I am not making silly threats. I am appealing for sanity. You are free to ignore them if you like, or feel that you are personally beyond salvation.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of my reaction has (for reasons not entirely clear to many) been in off-wiki venues where Filll does not attend.

For example, in The 300 Club, which is not visible to the general public, there are these two back-to-back posts...

I'm going to post a link here, in the 300 Club, to an otherwise unadvertised URL where I have just compiled the first two days worth of E-Mail between me and Filll from last August.

Note that Filll initiated E-Mail contact with Alexandra Kahn, the Media Relations Official at the MIT Media Lab.

I had no idea who Alexandra Kahn was until Filll evidently looked up the staff at the Media Lab, found her name, and took the initiative to send her E-Mail (with a copy to me).

To my mind, when he uses his E-Mail to initiate contact with people like Alexandra Kahn, and represents himself as speaking on behalf of Wikipedia, he has forfeited any claim that his E-Mail name and address are private.

Now, here is the link to the first two days of E-Mail messages between me and Filll.

Somey, Kato, et al, do you have any opinion or guidance about publishing that URL outside of this restricted forum?

I'm going to post a link here, in the 300 Club, to an otherwise unadvertised URL where I have just compiled the first two days worth of E-Mail between me and Filll from last August.

Note that Filll initiated E-Mail contact with Alexandra Kahn, the Media Relations Official at the MIT Media Lab.

I had no idea who Alexandra Kahn was until Filll evidently looked up the staff at the Media Lab, found her name, and took the initiative to send her E-Mail (with a copy to me).

To my mind, when he uses his E-Mail to initiate contact with people like Alexandra Kahn, and represents himself as speaking on behalf of Wikipedia, he has forfeited any claim that his E-Mail name and address are private.

Now, here is the link to the first two days of E-Mail messages between me and Filll.

Somey, Kato, et al, do you have any opinion or guidance about publishing that URL outside of this restricted forum?

I was surprised that no one commented on the above. But the lack of comment suggested to me that no one was particularly concerned about disclosing the contents of that initial round of E-Mail from Bob Stevens to myself and to Alexandra Kahn.

It seems there may be as many as three different people with the name Bob Stevens or Robert Stevens who are (or were) actively editing in the ID area on Wikipedia. It's quite possible they really are three different people with the same real name. The one who was tagged as an impersonator gave his Zip+4 code which returns a unique hit on one Robert Stevens of Woodbridge VA. Perhaps he should be contacted to discover why he registered as User:Filll Bob Stevens and signed his name CabalCounterIntelligenceUnit in his exchanges with Gnixon, Filll, Dave Souza, KillerChihuahua, and others during his one day of active posting before being kiboshed.

It all seems a tad fishy to me. Filll has openly used his name on WP:NTWW Skypecasts and in unsolicited E-Mail to Eugenie Scott of NCSE and to Alexandra Kahn of the MIT Media Lab, in which he represented himself as an agent of Wikipedia, offering to negotiate terms for the revision of Picard's BLP.

Also, why did Toddst1 summarily delete the subpages, which supply otherwise uncontentious references to the ongoing RfC/ID and RfAr/ID? I specifically took the time to craft those as transcludable pages so they could be used in those proceedings. How does Toddst1 justify redacting material already submitted, without objection, into evidence in those ongoing cases?

I've had to reconstitute them from Google cache. I now have two of them back up on the Media Ethics blog, until such time as they are properly restored on the English Wikipedia.

Finally, WAS 4.250 had posed some interesting questions to me on my talk page (e.g. on the notion of the Singularity), and I had posted my responses to him, in the spirit of educational and insightful dialogue on topics of current interest. What is the point of deleting that and shutting that dialogue down?

I honestly don't get it. WMF is supposedly sponsoring projects to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." What happened over the past two days is a blatant act of disempowerment, which (to my mind) negates and undermines the core mission of WMF.

Color me vexed and perplexed.

As to vexatious litigation, we have this gauntlet thrown down by Filll in RfC/ID:

How about you start with this, and then answer my 8 questions?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Alas, FM quietly erased "this" from the English Wikipedia, but it remains up in the Static Wikipedia, as well as in Google cache and here.

Meantime I had crafted responses to Filll's 8 question, which WAS 4.250 then posted a link to in RfC/ID#Answers.

Whereupon Toddst1 summarily erased it.

Which obliged me to fetch it back from Google cache and save it permanently here and here.

As to salvation, I'm holding out for a feature length opera tentatively entitled, The Final Absolution.

From: Moulton <moulton@musenet.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Subject: Copy of your message to Ali'i: Wikipedia e-mail - Answer to your Q at RfC/ID
Copy-To: Moulton <moulton@musenet.org>

In RfC/ID you write:

> I was also under the impression that Moulton made no effort to keep his identity anonymous, and never intended his name to remain un-outed. Was I mistaken? Has he stated he felt outed somewhere? Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) <

While it's easy enough to find my identity off-wiki, I expressly avoided posting my surname on-wiki. The reason for that is simple. If you post an item that contains both an avatar name and a real name, it turns up in a Google search on either one. I don't mind people I am collaborating with clicking on a link or two to check up up my bona fides. What I don't want is for some stranger unrelated to a site to find a random hit on Google that links my avatar name to my real name.

That's how Don Hopkins (aka SimHacker on SlashDot, aka notluom on World Crossing) found me, after Bela on World Crossing posted just such a concordance, against my will and against site policy at World Crossing.

It's not the outing per se, but the publishing of a concordance in a single paragraph accessible from a Google search.

I objected to that on World Crossing when Bela did, and now I object to it on WP, when both FeloniousMonk and Dave Souza have done it. I don't mind that people who I am collaborating with under some kind of community-wide social contract know who I am.

Does that make sense?

Moulton / Barry

P.S. You can quote, summarize, or paraphrase this response at RfC/ID or at AN/Moulton.

CC: Dan Tobias and Gnixon

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:34 AM, I received an E-Mail from Lar asking me if I cared if my real name is associated with my screen name, or if I personally considered it outing to tie them together.

Here is my reply, an hour later.

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:41:31 -0400
From: "Barry Kort" <bkort@media.mit.edu>
To: lar@miltontrainworks.com
Subject: Re: personal info

You are free to refer to me by any of the avatar names that I use online, or by my real name. But I would request that you not publish a concordance of all such names, the way Bela did at WorldCrossing, as that makes it way too easy for people like Don Hopkins to impersonate me, as he did in April 2006.

Does that answer your question?

Barry

--
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.

Per your request, I used checkuser on you and [[user:Robert Stevens]] to determine whether or not you are sockpuppets, and I am reporting the result here, publicly. It is, in my opinion, virtually certain that you are two different people. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how exactly was Filll "outed", again?

How interesting.

I had already reported that Filll, who connects to the Internet via a Comcast IP subtending a Comcast router in Gambrills MD, is very unlikely to be the Robert Stevens of Woodbridge VA 22193-3315 who registered on Jan 23rd as Filll Bob Stevens, who signed his posts CabalCounterIntelligenceUnit, and who was blocked on Jan 24th by Guettarda for "Impersonation of another editor".

Hello

Big fan. Keep up the good work. [[User:Filll Bob Stevens|CabalCounterIntelligenceUnit]] ([[User talk:Filll Bob Stevens|talk]]) 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I used checkuser on you and [[user:Robert Stevens]] to determine whether or not you are sockpuppets, and I am reporting the result here, publicly. It is, in my opinion, virtually certain that you are two different people. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how exactly was Filll "outed", again?

I thought a self-initiated RFCU was against CU policy...

Per your request, I used checkuser on you and [[user:Robert Stevens]] to determine whether or not you are sockpuppets, and I am reporting the result here, publicly. It is, in my opinion, virtually certain that you are two different people. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how exactly was Filll "outed", again?

I thought a self-initiated RFCU was against CU policy...

I believe that it is well known that the Wikipedia accounts user:robert stevens and user:raymond arritt are edited by the same person. Such usage falls within the WP:SOCK guidelines.

I do not know or seek to know the "real world" name of the person behind the Wikipedia accounts user:robert stevens or user:raymond arritt.


Versa

This post has been edited by Versa:

Per your request, I used checkuser on you and [[user:Robert Stevens]] to determine whether or not you are sockpuppets, and I am reporting the result here, publicly. It is, in my opinion, virtually certain that you are two different people. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how exactly was Filll "outed", again?

I thought a self-initiated RFCU was against CU policy...

I believe that it is well known that the Wikipedia accounts user:robert stevens and user:raymond arritt are edited by the same person. Such usage falls within the WP:SOCK guidelines.

I do not know or seek to know the "real world" name of the person behind the Wikipedia accounts user:robert stevens or user:raymond arritt.

Versa

I didn't know that. But I did know that Filll has been promoting Raymond Arritt's discussion of Expert Withdrawal.

I believe that it is well known that the Wikipedia accounts user:robert stevens and user:raymond arritt are edited by the same person. Such usage falls within the WP:SOCK guidelines.

Not according to the Arbitration Committee:

Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on#Sockpuppetry

I see here a number of edits to policy talk pages, including WP:RS and WP:NOR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ns&month=&year=

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

I believe that it is well known that the Wikipedia accounts user:robert stevens and user:raymond arritt are edited by the same person. Such usage falls within the WP:SOCK guidelines.

Not according to the Arbitration Committee:

Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on#Sockpuppetry

I see here a number of edits to policy talk pages, including WP:RS and WP:NOR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ns&month=&year=

Versa: I don't think this speculation is particularly useful. If there is reason to believe these accounts are linked, and that there has been disruption, make the case on-wiki and get a CU to look into the matter. If not, then I submit that this is a kind of character assassination that really isn't necessary...

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.

I just noticed on The Troubles page that ArbCom had previously ruled that kind of hooliganism to be strictly verboten...

Tit for tat

5) Editing in someone else's area of interest in retaliation is inappropriate.

Passed 8-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is well known that the Wikipedia accounts user:robert stevens and user:raymond arritt are edited by the same person. Such usage falls within the WP:SOCK guidelines.

Not according to the Arbitration Committee:

Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on#Sockpuppetry

I see here a number of edits to policy talk pages, including WP:RS and WP:NOR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ns&month=&year=

Versa: I don't think this speculation is particularly useful. If there is reason to believe these accounts are linked, and that there has been disruption, make the case on-wiki and get a CU to look into the matter. If not, then I submit that this is a kind of character assassination that really isn't necessary...

Lar, according to JzG, Mercury and the Arbitration Committee, if Versa's claim is correct, then very serious disruption has occurred, because the sockpuppet has participated in "discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." According to the Arbitration Committee, as seen in the ruling to which I linked, the proper remedy is a 90 day ban.

Interesting thread. Some familiar names found in those links. Likewise, I thought it was kinda odd to see the names active on a the ArbCom page across a few issues. I think it explains why I was suddenly flattened by a herd.

Fixed link - Derktar

This post has been edited by Derktar:

Lar, according to JzG, Mercury and the Arbitration Committee, if Versa's claim is correct, then very serious disruption has occurred, because the sockpuppet has participated in "discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." According to the Arbitration Committee, as seen in the ruling to which I linked, the proper remedy is a 90 day ban.

Sure. Absolutely.

IF the claim is correct. But all I see behind the claim is speculation. Give a CU enough to go on and some diffs of behaviours to justify the check and maybe something could be looked into. This is just speculation though. That's all I will say about it.

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.

I just noticed on The Troubles page that ArbCom had previously ruled that kind of hooliganism to be strictly verboten...

Tit for tat

5) Editing in someone else's area of interest in retaliation is inappropriate.

Passed 8-0 at 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless you're a pissed-off member of the power-Cabal. Then, harrassment (or according to POV, following up on old edits out of responsible interest, as started from the history page of somebody they're having a dispute with), is merely to make sure that a bad questionable editor hasn't done a lot of other COI and POV editing damage by creating a connected series of articles where they have had undue influence, and where the rest of the community has been formerly unaware of their existence. Admins are definitionally unable to do this kind of thing, because whatever they do with their own OWNed articles, it's not called that. And people who look into their OWNERSHIP are called stalkers. But in the case of editors the Cabal are at war with, those sods will be tracked back through their edit histories to the end of Wiki-time, to articles their opponents have never considered editing in a thousand years. Conjugation of pronoun: my "area of interest" is your "area of questionable influence," and his "walled garden of COI topics". Which needs to be re-edited at minimum, and deleted and salted if possible.

Did you know (for example) that SlimVirgin had a burning interest in Charles Sanders Pierce? And Odd Nature, Jossie, Jayjg and so on, also, in the same guy? They've all edited the bio of this guy who most people have never heard of. So many students of philosophy and logical semiotics on Wikipedia! And so many in the same Cabal (uh, sorry, student mind-improvement discussion group)....

So many students of philosophy and logical semiotics on Wikipedia!

Why is no one interested in Emotional Semantics and Emotional Semiotics?

Speaking of Emotional Semantics and Emotional Semiotics, can one of the more seasoned Drama Fans here tell me what this June Bug Kerfuffle is all about?

Per your request, I used checkuser on you and [[user:Robert Stevens]] to determine whether or not you are sockpuppets, and I am reporting the result here, publicly. It is, in my opinion, virtually certain that you are two different people. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how exactly was Filll "outed", again?

ROFL. I'm convinced that Filll is a woman. There is something about Filll's posts, the emotional aspect I believe, that has always given me that impression. I've always referred to Filll as him/he because everyone else does, but again, from my first interactions with Filll months ago, I've had the impression that I was dealing with a female.

I still wonder why Raul was not chastised for honoring a self-referential CU request. Every time this has come up on AN/I in the past, mostly by editors wishing to clear their good names, the usual response is that self-referential CU requests are against policy and always denied. It seems to me that Raul is showing some favoritism towards Filll.

I still wonder why Raul was not chastised …

They reckon he's chaste enuff …

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

ROFL. I'm convinced that Filll is a woman. There is something about Filll's posts, the emotional aspect I believe, that has always given me that impression. I've always referred to Filll as him/he because everyone else does, but again, from my first interactions with Filll months ago, I've had the impression that I was dealing with a female.

I thought Filll participates on some of the more boring episodes of Not The Wikipedia Weekly. Isn't he manly in voice on those?

Greg

I still wonder why Raul was not chastised for honoring a self-referential CU request. Every time this has come up on AN/I in the past, mostly by editors wishing to clear their good names, the usual response is that self-referential CU requests are against policy and always denied. It seems to me that Raul is showing some favoritism towards Filll.

They're not exactly against policy but they are usually declined because the results can be rigged if the user is smart enough, and most checkusers consider them a waste of time.

I'm convinced that Filll is a woman. There is something about Filll's posts, the emotional aspect I believe, that has always given me that impression. I've always referred to Filll as him/he because everyone else does, but again, from my first interactions with Filll months ago, I've had the impression that I was dealing with a female.

My first off-wiki contact with Filll was by telephone, when he called me up late on the night of August 22nd, 2007, after this discussion. We talked on the phone until about 3AM. He had a male voice then, and he has the same male voice on recent WP:NTWW Skypecasts.

I thought Filll participates on some of the more boring episodes of Not The Wikipedia Weekly. Isn't he manly in voice on those?

Greg

My first off-wiki contact with Filll was by telephone, when he called me up late on the night of August 22nd, 2007, after this discussion. We talked on the phone until about 3AM. He had a male voice then, and he has the same male voice on recent WP:NTWW Skypecasts.

Well, there goes that theory. I guess he's just emotional.

I guess he's just emotional.

His emo runs mainly to (IMG:http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/paranoia.png).

A Crockwork Orange, Redux

Colloquy at RfAr/OM on the perceived lack of Due Process...

I would argue that, since we don't have laws regarding "due process" here, it was unwise for OM and others to give ArbCom every reason not to open the recent decision-making process up for comment beforehand. Incidents like this AN/I thread, for example, demonstrate that OM has several backers ready to argue his case endlessly, even when he has clearly been behaving inappropriately. Why would ArbCom invite comment when the commenting process has been abused by tag-teaming and endless argument in the past? Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, objectivity is a good thing. And in a community, so is due process. Complex though those two concepts may be. •Jim62sch•dissera! 05:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, due process is a good thing. However, I believe a number of editors on Wikipedia have been perfectly happy to exist without any right to due process so long as it worked in their favor. From my perspective, only a fool would undermine due process, then complain when the privilege is not extended their way. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please do explain in depth. I'm all ears. •Jim62sch•dissera! 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Sχeptomaniac could invite Jim Schuler here for an in-depth review of the issue now on his table.

I don't know where to post this and I'm probably plucking at straws here, but I just noticed user AuntEntropy. Their edits have been 99% to intelligent design related articles. They were welcomed by dave souza and immediately asked for his help regarding an edit conflict they were having regarding ID. I only noticed them recently because of their strong supports of Orangemarlin in the recent disputes. I dunno, maybe I'm reading too much into this but stuff like this makes me suspicious. See contributions

A Crockwork Orange, Redux

Colloquy at RfAr/OM on the perceived lack of Due Process...

I would argue that, since we don't have laws regarding "due process" here, it was unwise for OM and others to give ArbCom every reason not to open the recent decision-making process up for comment beforehand. Incidents like this AN/I thread, for example, demonstrate that OM has several backers ready to argue his case endlessly, even when he has clearly been behaving inappropriately. Why would ArbCom invite comment when the commenting process has been abused by tag-teaming and endless argument in the past? Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, objectivity is a good thing. And in a community, so is due process. Complex though those two concepts may be. •Jim62sch•dissera! 05:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, due process is a good thing. However, I believe a number of editors on Wikipedia have been perfectly happy to exist without any right to due process so long as it worked in their favor. From my perspective, only a fool would undermine due process, then complain when the privilege is not extended their way. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please do explain in depth. I'm all ears. •Jim62sch•dissera! 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Sχeptomaniac could invite Jim Schuler here for an in-depth review of the issue now on his table.

But first, Jim has to read the wikis on Due process, Show trial, Star Chamber, Magna Carta, Rules of evidence, Bill of Rights, Habeus corpus, and so on.

If old Jim were accused of a crime and then gagged, then partly stiffled, then imprisoned without formal indictment or bail, and finally, the first thing that happened after he hit the court room (eventually) was that the DA started reading his old rapsheet and FBI file to a jury that his side had no hand in selecting--- he'd start to make childish noises, I bet. But doesn't recognize this kind of thing, when it happens on WP.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

From my perspective as a science educator who is also interested in ethics in media, the problem to be solved is how to educate such incorrigible characters as Jim Schuler (Jim62sch), Paul Mitchell (aka Skip on Blogger and Odd nature on Wikipedia), OrangeMarlin, and the rest of that out-of-control street gang known as the WikiClique on ID.

Odd Socracy Questions Wikipedia's ad hoc Ochlocracy

So now the Double Secret Probation of OrangeMarlin has blown back to a Review of Undue Process.

Here is a comment by Blueboy96...

Comment by Blueboy96

There are circumstances under which it is appropriate--indeed, necessary--for ArbCom to 1) hold an in-camera arbitration and/or 2) make a summary decision. This isn't one of them. What is even more troubling is that this was made without any opportunity for OrangeMarlin to mount a defense. The evidence appears to spell out unacceptable behavior by OrangeMarlin, but to deny him even a chance to defend himself is highly troubling, to say the least. The rationale for this action offered by FT2--which basically amounts to "We've heard this before"--is not even remotely convincing. I would think we need to consider whether FT2 possesses the judgment necessary to serve in such a high position of trust on this project.

To those who say this case should be rejected with prejudice--I would agree, except for the possibility raised that a user may well have been banned because of OrangeMarlin's actions. If a user was unjustly banned, it would be grossly irresponsible not to look into it. Blueboy96 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't been following the libretto very closely, it was Blueboy96 who summarily blocked me two weeks ago without inviting me to mount a defense. Perhaps someone should assume the responsibility of looking into that, Lar.

(IMG:http://ultra.musenet.org:8020/media/JustlyBanned.jpg)

A Justifiably Troubled Coyote

Merzul adds a thoughtful section to the RfC/ID discussion...

View by Merzul

I want to make a final statement before I unwatch all pages related to this dispute. Unlike my other comments, I have given this one some thought as it is The Final Word. Instead of my typically confused ramblings, this will actually contain some useful information. I will swing back and forth, but in the end I suggest a few practical things that will avoid similar problems in the future.

Pursuit of Justice

First, a plea to all our great article writers. It may be worth to occasionally remind yourself of the people around the world reading the articles you write. The wonderful thing you are all doing here is to make information freely accessible to the world. I doubt that when you one day retire and look back on what you did on Wikipedia, you would wish you had spent more time on criticizing the arbcom or gathering evidence, and so on. I'm just asking, if the pursuit of intrawiki justice is being somewhat overvalued by many of us? These internal disputes are extremely addictive, and we all want to be vindicated, but one year from now, will we all look back and be proud of what we achieved during this time, or will we lament the articles we could have written instead?

Having said that, let's crack this case once and for all.

Atheism and Intelligent Design

I have mostly been supportive of the editors that are keeping our science articles accurate. However, we must all admit that mistakes were made. The first example is maybe not so serious, but Project Merz is a list of Wikipedians with the user name Merz or a variation thereof (e.g., Merzbow, Merzul, Merzeban, etc.) who were suspected of "supporting intelligent design"... In my case, I only realized something was wrong, when I woke up in the morning and checked my mail. There was a fan-letter in my inbox. It was beautifully written, it talked about revolutions and overturning consensus, it mentioned Socrates and Galileo... His own name meant nothing to me at the time, but the editors, who had banned him, weren't exactly pleased with my comments.

There might actually be a reason why atheist Wikipedians may be confused with ID-advocates. Many prominent atheists, most notably Richard Dawkins, agree with the fundamental premise of the ID movement, in contrast to Kenneth R. Miller and Stephen Jay Gould, that science provides answers to questions about whether intentionality can be ascribed to certain natural processes. (Excuse the obfuscating formulation, I can't say "give answers about the existence of God", which is what I really mean, because ID does not officially talk about God).

In the future, whenever someone claims they are atheist, please do not question their sincerity, and most of all, do not say this is a well-known tactic. The best is to not comment on it at all, but if the person seems genuinely perplexed, then an answer like the following might help:

You may be surprised that as an atheist you find this article in violation of our policy on neutrality, but note that this article is based on mainstream sources, and these sources maintain that science and religion are non-overlapping. Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, who believe that a true understanding of science leads to atheism, or ID supporters, who believe that the opposite conclusion can be drawn from scientific inquiry, are both minority views heavily criticized by the academic mainstream. Therefore, it isn't really that surprising that as an atheist you may find this article biased.

I would personally have appreciated such a response. As to the other Merz, the context seems very different and wasn't about ID itself, but now ...

About Moulton

Since he sent me that very nice letter, I will return the favour and defend him somewhat... Namely, what he wanted to do on Rosalind Picard was completely in line with the letter and spirit of WP:BLP: we do not take an eventualist approach when it comes to biographies living people. We do not unbalance a biography by focusing the article on a single event, and then tell other people "you are welcome to supply the rest". Absolutely not!

Moulton's mistake, of course, is that he appeals to nebulous notions of "ethics" rather than our core content policies. What he should have done is to dump the entire list of Rosalind Picard's publications on the talk page and say "if you have any clue about this work, go ahead and write about it, otherwise, citing WP:BLP, I kindly ask you to get the fuck off this biography." Of course, he couldn't have said that when he is completely alone, which is why we have noticeboards...

The problem is that new users are not aware of community-wide noticeboards.

Arguing against consensus, even when you are right, is a Bad Idea. It is particularly bad when a user, who is not well-versed in the secret arts of policy shortcuts, tries to argue against long-time editors. If we want to avoid things like this happening again, we need to make much better use of community-wide noticeboards, which I will return to below.

Here is the "very nice letter" I sent to Merzul, back on October 14th, after reading his comments on the FA on Intelligent Design, the day after it was featured.

Subject :Copy of your message to Merzul: Wikipedia e-mail: Overturning Consensus
Date: 10/14/07

I was intrigued by your recent thoughts about the wisdom of going against popular consensus.

I suppose the evidence to support your cautionary note can be found in the best known historical cases where someone went against a widely held consensus and suffered the painful political consequences.

Among the better known examples, I suppose, are those of Socrates and Galileo. To a lesser extent, Darwin and Freud took a lot of flack, too. Darwin is still caught in the crossfire -- on the one side, the religious fundamentalists say Darwin's Theory is no good at all; on the other side, the technical theorists say it's nowhere near good enough to rise to modern standards of a well-crafted scientific model.

Overturning consensus is arguably a dangerous occupation, regardless of whether the intrusive idea eventually proves to be the winner.

In the politics of civil dissent, it is not easy to sort out crackpot theories from iconoclastic heresies that eventually lead to major paradigm shifts in cultural beliefs.

In scientific research, every innovative new theory starts out as the solitary view of a lone investigator. If one is going to float a new and unfamiliar idea, one can expect to live, like Shrek, in a lonely swamp with few friendly neighbors (if any).

The problem on Wikipedia is not that it's a poor venue for introducing young theories, but that it's a poor venue for displacing old myths.

Myths benefit from the support of a lot of "reliable sources" which mimetically endorse them. Once a misconception gets into print, it can easily become a widely held belief, notwithstanding its underlying falsehood.

Ironically, the best methods for exploding such hoary myths were the innovative methods adopted and demonstrated by Socrates and Galileo. Anyone who has ever used the Socratic Method is well aware that it comes across as tendentious and disruptive to the defenders of the status quo belief. And anyone who has ever used the Scientific Method soon learns that it's not very popular with those who favor political power over the competing power of scientific knowledge. (If you don't believe me, just ask Pope Urban.)

While your heretical proposal probably won't win wide support, I applaud you for your courage in seeding the dialogue with a fresh (if disruptive and disturbing) idea.

I don't know where to post this and I'm probably plucking at straws here, but I just noticed user AuntEntropy. Their edits have been 99% to intelligent design related articles. They were welcomed by dave souza and immediately asked for his help regarding an edit conflict they were having regarding ID. I only noticed them recently because of their strong supports of Orangemarlin in the recent disputes. I dunno, maybe I'm reading too much into this but stuff like this makes me suspicious. See contributions

Almost everyone that goes around pointing out that they're new is a sock.

I don't know where to post this and I'm probably plucking at straws here, but I just noticed user AuntEntropy. Their edits have been 99% to intelligent design related articles. They were welcomed by dave souza and immediately asked for his help regarding an edit conflict they were having regarding ID. I only noticed them recently because of their strong supports of Orangemarlin in the recent disputes. I dunno, maybe I'm reading too much into this but stuff like this makes me suspicious. See contributions

Almost everyone that goes around pointing out that they're new is a sock.

Yup.

"I've been watching how things work here and contributing here and there as an IP, now I finally registered an account."

Look at the first edit - isn't he using some vandal reversion tool?

Compare the arrival of Aunt Entropy to the first two days worth of contributions by Baegis, including this handshake with Dave Souza..

Look at the first edit - isn't he using some vandal reversion tool?

No, that is a standard text when you use Undo from a diff. However, seems to have a long tail of experience as an IP editor - you'd have to say that he works as a very experienced editor and so you would expect to be able to identify a long tail of IP edits. An IP editor would not last long in that toxic environment whether pro or con.

In fact, given the early comment about the sticky edit, I would expect to see numerous IP contributions around that article that come to an end with the account starting. A newbie would not be cute about hiding the IP to user relationship.

Curiouser and curiouser...

How interesting.

I had already reported that Filll, who connects to the Internet via a Comcast IP subtending a Comcast router in Gambrills MD, is very unlikely to be the Robert Stevens of Woodbridge VA 22193-3315 who registered on Jan 23rd as Filll Bob Stevens, who signed his posts CabalCounterIntelligenceUnit, and who was blocked on Jan 24th by Guettarda for "Impersonation of another editor".

Hello

Big fan. Keep up the good work. [[User:Filll Bob Stevens|CabalCounterIntelligenceUnit]] ([[User talk:Filll Bob Stevens|talk]]) 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

After Raul654 ran that checkuser at Filll's request (to prove that User:Filll was not User:Robert Stevens), there briefly appeared this addendum on Filll's talk page...

Checkuser request

Per your request, I used checkuser on you and user:Robert Stevens to determine whether or not you are sockpuppets, and I am reporting the result here, publicly. It is, in my opinion, virtually certain that you are two different people. Raul654 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bob,
Interesting, since check user requests cannot be done to clear somebody. Meanwhile, Raul654 and Filll continue to work on behalf of the NCSE. Hilarious. Who cares what their real names are. ParksAreFun (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I say "ephemeral" because PouponOnToast quickly reverted it.

So who is this transient character, ParksAreFun, whom Neil quickly blocks?

A look at his contribs is intriguing. Among his edits are one for "hound" and one for Woodbridge VA.

Is this "banned editor" the same as User:Filll Bob Stevens, aka CabalCounterIntelligenceUnit?

Neil? What can you tell us?

I don't know where to post this and I'm probably plucking at straws here, but I just noticed user AuntEntropy. Their edits have been 99% to intelligent design related articles. They were welcomed by dave souza and immediately asked for his help regarding an edit conflict they were having regarding ID. I only noticed them recently because of their strong supports of Orangemarlin in the recent disputes. I dunno, maybe I'm reading too much into this but stuff like this makes me suspicious. See contributions

Almost everyone that goes around pointing out that they're new is a sock.

Yup.

"I've been watching how things work here and contributing here and there as an IP, now I finally registered an account."

Look at the first edit - isn't he using some vandal reversion tool?

Oh boy, would you look at that! Auntie came to pile on my WQA case. Sheesh, these guys really are myopic.

This post has been edited by prospero:

Today being Independence Day here in the US, I have posted this comment to Jim Schuler's blog article on "Executing the Constitution" ...

Blogger Moulton said...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." —Thomas Jefferson, US Declaration of Independence

I also hold another truth to be scientifically discoverable: That all people are endowed by their Creator with another unalienable right — the right to engage in discovery learning by means of the Scientific Method on the one hand, or the reciprocal right to remain blissfully ignorant on the other hand.

Which hand (or cerebral hemisphere) do you favor, Jim?

Fri Jul 04, 09:18:38 AM 2008

This post has been edited by Moulton:

Interesting reading...

Interesting reading...

So it is. Seems TheocracyWatch gets pretty significant weight as a source, but how reliable of one is it, I wonder.

The IDCab has chased off User:ItsMeJudith from her attempts to clean up their gawdawful mess.

I did originally come here only to help stop the warring. Since that isn't working, I shall withdraw. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogospheric Dissent From Encyclopedic Hyperbolism

Posted today at Moulton Lava...

Literalism vs. Hyperbolism

In the discussion about how to characterize Intelligent Design, Filll on the English Wikipedia offers this view:

ID is primarily about the inadequacies of the theory of evolution. It is secondarily about abiogenesis and fine tuning of the universe. It was created to try to create some way to fool the United States Judiciary and constitutional law experts so that biblical literalism could be taught in science classes in public schools, or even that teachers could be forced to teach biblical literalism in science classes in schools. It is part of a grand scheme in some cultural war that fundamentalist extremists are mounting to reform US society. There is minimal science behind ID, and therefore it is not really much of a hypothesis or a theory. It is a public relations and legal strategy by and large. It is essentially intellectually vacuous. The two meagre scientific ideas associated with ID, specific complexity and specified complexity, are mildly interesting but have no evidence to support them, and plenty of evidence against them. A major demand of ID is that "materialist" science be discarded, by which they mean that the definition of science should be returned to its pre-Scientific Revolution definition a few centuries ago, and that magic (and astrology) should be defined as scientific. This in fact is identical to the ideas promulgated by Al Ghazali around 1100 CE that destroyed Muslim science, then the most advanced in the world. --Filll (talk | wpc) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The confusion over literal vs. metaphorical interpretation of texts is a problem that is not limited to Biblical accounts. Even newspaper accounts are subject to disputes over how literally to take headline hyperbole. If a headline writer (say, on a news story in the NY Times, or on a public relations advertisement criticizing a PBS series on Evolution) crafts an emotionally arresting headline, should Wikipedia seize on a single instance of a hyperbolic term found only in such a singular headline (and nowhere else in original source material) and spin that singular appearance of an emotionally loaded word into a years-long kerfuffle over promoting a literal interpretation of that headline hyperbole?

It occurs to this writer that elevating a single instance of a hyperbolic headline into either a scientific theory or an irrefutable encyclopedic truth is the epitome of hyperbolic over-acting.

And if I'm over-emphasizing the hypocrisy of headline hyperbolism, then here I am over-dramatizing my Blogospheric Dissent From Encyclopedic Hyperbolism.

Paul Mitchell (as Centaur of attention) and Jim Schuler (as 71.242.27.212 [pool-71-242-27-212.phil.east.verizon.net]) are at it again.

They are taking turns vandalizing pages on Wikiversity.

We are even dialoguing via edit summaries on my Wikiversity talk page.

Paul Mitchell (as Centaur of attention) and Jim Schuler (as 71.242.27.212 [pool-71-242-27-212.phil.east.verizon.net]) are at it again.

They are taking turns vandalizing pages on Wikiversity.

We are even dialoguing via edit summaries on my Wikiversity talk page.

Centaur of attention, who posts from SMTP.Macys.Com, denies being FeloniousMonk. Since we know that Odd nature also posts from SMTP.Macys.Com, and goes on vacation the same week that FM goes on vacation, one wonders if they are siamese twins. Lar and I have asked him to explain.

Meanwhile, WAS 4.250, Dzonatas, and I have asked the Custodial Admins to recommend a conflict resolution process regarding other unsupported claims on his newly minted user page.