ID Cabal Request for Comment Options

[Bob Boy]

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

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

[Giggy]

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

[Moulton]

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

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

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

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

Moulton pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited to add in LaraLove's post.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Bob Boy]

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

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

[LaraLove]

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

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

Giggy response:

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

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

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

[Giggy]

...ID Cabal...

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

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

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

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

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

[Moulton]

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

Moulton

Conducting a campaign against Wikipedia

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

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

OK, Scouts, here is your first assignment.

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

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

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

[Gold heart]

OK, Scouts, here is your first assignment.

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Boy]

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

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

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

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

[Giggy]

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

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

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

[Proabivouac]

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

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

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

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

For example, upon Moulton himself.

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

[Moulton]

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

The suspense is killing me.

[Cla68]

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

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

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

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

Moulton pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited to add in LaraLove's post.

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

[Milton Roe]

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

And we like it! Here on WR

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

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

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

--SkekTek

[Bob Boy]

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Bob Boy:

[Moulton]

Welcome to Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination.

[Giggy]

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

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

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

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

[Moulton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moulton]

Case in point...

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

New Evidence Regarding User:FeloniousMonk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moulton]

Let's go back for a moment to that snippet which Dave Souza posted in that new discussion thread at RfC/ID...

The link is to an article "By Barry Kort", the second paragraph of which states – "Last week, I learned firsthand why the content of Wikipedia articles are considered unreliable. Elsewhere, I wrote an essay on my experience trying to correct an erroneous article in Wikipedia. It was a dispiriting nightmare." The "Elsewhere" link is to a Moulton Lava essay.

Leaving aside for the moment the LaraLovely observation that Dave Souza now has the notable distinction of having just posted the only surviving on-wiki concordance linking the avatar name "Moulton" to a real name from academia, it's instructive to dig down to the next level of detail.

The Op-Ed article that Dave cites on the HardNewsCafe (HNC) at Utah State University (USU) originally appeared a few days earlier as a post bylined by "Moulton" on the Media Ethics blog associated the school's undergraduate course on Journalism in Ethics. The headline of that Moultonic blog post was, "Wikipedia and Ethics in Online Journalism." A few days after it appeared, Mike Sweeney, the Department Head of the USU School of Journalism and Communication, who is also the Senior Faculty Editor of the award-winning HardNewsCafe offered to reprint the blog post as an Op-Ed piece...

Subject: RE: Wikipedia: A Case Study In Accuracy, Excellence, and Ethics in Online Media
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:47:30 -0600
From: "Mike Sweeney" <mike.sweeney@usu.edu>
To: "Barry Kort" <bkort@media.mit.edu>

I would love to post this as an opinion piece on the HNC.

Any changes you want to make before I do? It appears that the word "of" has fallen out of the lead paragraph. ..Mike

When Mike Sweeney reprinted it, he fixed the above-noted typo, and he made two other changes that he didn't bother to notify me of in advance. First he pitched my bland headline and substituted one that he crafted from the very sentence that Dave Souza highlights, "Wikipedia makes for a nightmare in online journalism ethics." I have to admit it's a better headline than the one I used on the Media Ethics blog. And Mike's other change was to replace the byline "Moulton" with the real name of an academic who is affiliated with USU, in accordance with the policy of the HardNewsCafe that all published articles are bylined with the author's real name.

[Rootology]

Is it just me or is 99% of that RFC just a rehash of battle lines drawn group by group, party by party, and not much else? This can't "end" any way except in front of an RFAR bloodbath.

That said, who DOES give a fuck what Ben Stein or some religious group has to say about science? Science articles = higher value on real scientific sourcing by real scientists with real support from the real scientific community. Religious nutjobbery is not the scientific community.

How is that not obvious?

[Bob Boy]

That said, who DOES give a fuck what Ben Stein or some religious group has to say about science? Science articles = higher value on real scientific sourcing by real scientists with real support from the real scientific community. Religious nutjobbery is not the scientific community.

How is that not obvious?

I don't think I've seen anyone complaining about the ID Cabal that is doing so from a viewpoint of advocating a straight-faced treatment of Intelligent Design. The problem is that this group of editors apparently adopted a set of group behaviors for driving off ID advocates from these articles - and then proceeded to apply this thug-like intimidation tactic to anyone who crossed any one of them, anywhere on the wiki.

This post has been edited by Bob Boy:

[Moulton]

What's important is to identify the tribal groups.

Here is how I sort them out...

Homo Politicus Dominus

Homo Scientificus Outcasticus

Homo Ludens Inanicus

Homo Lurkerus WTFicus

Homo Apatheticus Snoozicus

[Bob Boy]

Quote from Filll at the RfC talkpage:

I am cool. I have been attacked and threatened over and over and over and over for the last month here and have hardly responded at all. Let me see if I attacked any of you with about 20 friends for a month, if you would be able to do the same?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Filll generally conducts his attacks in concert with 5 or 6 friends, not 20. So this is clearly unfair to Filll.

[Rootology]

I don't think I've seen anyone complaining about the ID Cabal that is doing so from a viewpoint of advocating a straight-faced treatment of Intelligent Design. The problem is that this group of editors apparently adopted a set of group behaviors for driving off ID advocates from these articles - and then proceeded to apply this thug-like intimidation tactic to anyone who crossed any one of them, anywhere on the wiki.

That stuff isn't cool, no, but I can see why one side may be upset. A straight NPOV treatmeant of ID would be to label it what the scientific community and mainstream global (we can safely ignore the irrelevant American Christian Fundamentalists who have no authority on anything outside their homes or certain Red States and are a faded minority whackadoodle group) community label ID: science fiction. ID is up there with Lord Xenu swooping out of the volcano to infect us with Vulcan brain herpes or whatever it is he does.

And this is speaking as a Christian.

Indulging fanatics is a problem that needs to be stamped out on there. I was following the Prem Rawat stuff the other day and it hurt my brain. Any and every even barely negative thing about the guy from any kind of mainstream media is stamped down and debated to the most absurd degree by people known to be church officers under his cult, or church, or whatever it is. Same thing with the ID stuff. Its ridiculous.

This post has been edited by Rootology:

[LaraLove]

That said, who DOES give a fuck what Ben Stein or some religious group has to say about science? Science articles = higher value on real scientific sourcing by real scientists with real support from the real scientific community. Religious nutjobbery is not the scientific community.

How is that not obvious?

I don't think I've seen anyone complaining about the ID Cabal that is doing so from a viewpoint of advocating a straight-faced treatment of Intelligent Design. The problem is that this group of editors apparently adopted a set of group behaviors for driving off ID advocates from these articles - and then proceeded to apply this thug-like intimidation tactic to anyone who crossed any one of them, anywhere on the wiki.

That is what the basis was for the RFAR, but these RFCs are not focusing on that, which I think is the point in their creation... to distract from the real problem. It's been clearly stated several times that the issue is if someone crosses one of these editors, anywhere, the rest of them come running. They keep turning it around to be about the articles. Most of us involved in this RFAR and the RFCs couldn't give a shit less about their article contributions. It's like Orangemarlin keeps mentioning this reversion of his, stating it somehow started everything with the_undertow. What reversion?

None of this has had anything to do with article edits, at least not in my perception. If I missed something, someone please fill me in. It's specifically about their edits outside of the ID articles.

[Bob Boy]

None of this has had anything to do with article edits, at least not in my perception. If I missed something, someone please fill me in. It's specifically about their edits outside of the ID articles.

Yes, absolutely. They've demonstrated this behavior everywhere from Images for Deletion to Requests for Adminship. I don't think any of the serious participants in the Anti-ID-Cabal camp really give much of a damn about Intelligent Design as a concept. It's just that the ID Clique tactic of labeling their opponents as nutjobs has worked so well for them that they can't give it up.

This post has been edited by Bob Boy:

[Proabivouac]

Indulging fanatics is a problem that needs to be stamped out on there. I was following the Prem Rawat stuff the other day and it hurt my brain. Any and every even barely negative thing about the guy from any kind of mainstream media is stamped down and debated to the most absurd degree by people known to be church officers under his cult, or church, or whatever it is. Same thing with the ID stuff. Its ridiculous.

Indulged? They're invited when they're promised that anyone can edit and that their beliefs and background are no barrier to having an equal say in article content, so long as they follow WP rules. "Neutral point of view", besides being wholly voluntary and rhetorical, clearly means different things to different people: to fanatics it means the fair shake they're elsewhere denied.

So having promised that, now what do we do? Break our promise, or live with its consequences?

Driving people off through the appearance of process is one answer, albeit a dishonest and unethical one. Wouldn't it be easier to state that Wikipedia presents science articles from a mainstream scientific point of view, if that's actually what we wish to achieve? Though by this time, there are enough people on Wikipedia who wouldn't agree with that change to make that unlikely.

And many with worldviews antithetical to science and reason are perfectly decent people - do they really deserve to be invited to participate on what seem like favorable terms, then personally abused?

All that said, and having read Science Apologists' comment to the RfC, which has much to recommend it, let's not forget that, even if mainstream experts were empowered and in charge, instead of being driven off by ignorant mobs, tenacious cranks or clueless admins, the Rosalind Picard article was a feature piece posing ("coatrack") as a biography. The experts here would not be scientists, even in her field (and no attempt was made to cover her actual work), but biographers and mainstream journalists.

Short of that, someone with enough sense about these things to realize when they're being unfair to someone might do.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Random832]

None of this has had anything to do with article edits, at least not in my perception. If I missed something, someone please fill me in. It's specifically about their edits outside of the ID articles.

Well - not _entirely_ not anything to do with article edits - their edits to BLPs (which a reasonable person would not regard as being "ID articles") have been brought up as problematic by some people.

[Rootology]

Indulged? They're invited when they're promised that anyone can edit and that their beliefs and background are no barrier to having an equal say in article content, so long as they follow WP rules. "Neutral point of view", besides being wholly voluntary and rhetorical, clearly means different things to different people: to fanatics it means the fair shake they're elsewhere denied.

So having promised that, now what do we do? Break our promise, or live with its consequences?

NPOV isn't an invitation to go nuts to push your views, though, and never has been. NPOV isn't a fair shake, it's not a 1:1 for pro/con, or a 4:3, or a 10:1, or anything else like that. It's a reflection of what the mainstream authorities say. I have contacts and friends in certain entertainment media circles, I could get (and have in the past) published work in both online and print media that could count as "RS" for articles. But what if my published work were part of the fringe, for whatever it was? Even if I'm an authority on a given topic (I could be considered an authority for some things, believe it or not). Should it have the same weight as the mainstream for some elusive NPOV standard that is utterly subjective? Should each individual article be a stand-alone oasis per NPOV? If the Evolution main article describes it as what it is per accepted science--the singularly most accepted, acceptable, and plausible theory of the origin of life under modern widely accepted understanding? If that's the case, and thats wholly contrary with what Intellegient Design stands for, should the ID article one click away say "ID is the truth"?

NPOV is an amazing idea for a populist, communal product like Wikipedia. The problem is that when you get into super controversial or adversarial areas, what then? Whose POV is more neutral/accepted? Were the Irish fighters that worked to throw off the British seizure and occupation of their lands in the early 1900s patriots and freedom fighters, or criminals and terrorists? What do the Northern Irish say? The southern Irish? The Catholics, the Protestants? What about the British? Who has more authority there? Ditty for Israel & Palestine, the people trying to drive the US out of Iraq, and other gentle topics like abortion. Or heck, the one that got me in trouble, for just arguing that the stupid 9/11 articles stay totally neutral and not totally or absolutely minimize and disenfranchise the conspiracy nuts.

So, while it's an amazing idea, for NPOV, it scales for shit on these articles. Theres no answer for the political ones, or the crazy ones, but for the science articles? Totally, totally easy. Science sources > all other sources, full stop, the end. NPOV doesn't supercede reality.

Driving people off through the appearance of process is one answer, albeit a dishonest and unethical one. Wouldn't it be easier to state that Wikipedia presents science articles from a mainstream scientific point of view, if that's actually what we wish to achieve? Though by this time, there are enough people on Wikipedia who wouldn't agree with that change to make that unlikely.

This IS exactly what Wikipedia needs to do. The problem is that any time someone tries to push some small or big change through, theres like 5-10 vocal people that scream their irrelevant minority heads off because they don't like it for whatever reason, people get sick of fighting with them, and bang, the idea is dead when everyone gives up to not fight the maniacs. How do you fix this? Get rid of the maniacs. Unethical? Today. Fuck 'em. Tomorrow is more important in this case.

And many with worldviews antithetical to science and reason are perfectly decent people - do they really deserve to be invited to participate on what seem like favorable terms, then personally abused?

No, that's not right, but the maniacs (on all sides) need to be neutered forcibly.

This post has been edited by Rootology:

[Milton Roe]

NPOV is an amazing idea for a populist, communal product like Wikipedia.

Nah. First of all, why have a bad and totally undescriptive name for something? NPOV really is meant to mean something like "junior journalistic representation and synthesis of major reliable-source expert POVs" JJRSMRS-POV. "Aha," lightbulbs flash on over the heads of Newbies. "It doesn't mean neutral POV for the sources, it just means neutral for ME-- except that I'm supposed to cover the sources in proportion to their reliability and popularity with experts in the field!" And just about when somebody finally figures this out, they wonder how somebody who isn't themselves an expert on a subject can possibly DO that.

And (so sorry) the answer is: they can't. It's a dictim which is designed so that it cannot possibly be even approximately fulfilled. The writer, of course, must select and boil down sources (that's called "writing"), and that ACT cannot (in good use of language) be called anything but "synthesis." So some kind of synthesis is required and expected, but not synthesis in support of an original conclusion of the article-writer. Okay...

But you're not out of the woods. For one reason, the article being produced by the writer is not supposed to be copied from some other encyclopedia, so it must be an original synthesis of the writer in some sense. The POV it advances is this: "This is a reasonable survey of this subject, according to what is accepted by those who think about it a lot" (addendum: in the opinion of the guy writing it-- which goes without saying, but on Wikipedia, not without denying). Naturally, anybody else who surveys the field, will come to a different POV about what consitutes a proper survey. Clearly, none of these can be a neutral POV in any sense of the world "neutral". And that includes the meta-sense of just being the messenger. The editor-messenger in Wikipedia heavily selects, edits, stitches together, explains, and presents the message. He or she is NOT a neutral conduit.

There is NO sense in which the writing of an encyclopedia article can be "neutral." Even the WP-orthodox attempt at mere summary of major expert points of view, gets immediately into epistemological problems which have no good solution. And in which people committed to neutrality are doomed to end up hopelessly at war with people committed to figuring out "What is academic reality?" That question cannot be neutrally asked or answered, because even though it is a question about the objective reality of a subjective body of literature, it's still a question about an objective reality. At the least, it asks (and attempts to answer) the objective question of: What DO the experts REALLY say in print on this issue? On any question about subjective reality, there are bound to be varying opinions. The writer has only his own. If other people try to help him/her, then he still has to choose. But there is no escape from thinking, and thinking is bound to produce a result and that's by definition a POV.

M

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[LaraLove]

None of this has had anything to do with article edits, at least not in my perception. If I missed something, someone please fill me in. It's specifically about their edits outside of the ID articles.

Well - not _entirely_ not anything to do with article edits - their edits to BLPs (which a reasonable person would not regard as being "ID articles") have been brought up as problematic by some people.

That's a true point. Better stated, place "ID articles" anywhere I said "articles".

I think the title of the RFAR was a mistake that is working to the ID group's benefit. To Sceptre's credit, what would a more appropriate title have been? I guess just naming them all, but what a title that would be! I think when an uninvolved editor sees the title, it's natural to assume it's an issue related to the articles. So when the ID group starts pounding away their policy points with NPOV and FRINGE and start debating the issues within the article space with those articles, it not only distracts from the main point, but it seems appropriate to those who don't understand the basis for the request.

This is the biggest mess. Very unorganized, but there isn't really a process available to deal with an issue that is on such a large scale as this. Filll is urging everyone to back away or risk having their own edits scrutinized, but I don't think any of us will, because we're not worried about our edits.

[Moulton]

They are going to have to convene a Truth and Reconciliation Process, chaired by someone with the integrity of NewYorkBrad.

[Proabivouac]

They are going to have to convene a Truth and Reconciliation Process, chaired by someone with the integrity of NewYorkBrad.

I'm not certain what you mean by a "truth and reconciliation process", Moulton. The chance that people will look inward, examine the habits that navigating Wikipedia' habitrail has instilled in them and then honestly speak to them is zero.

Yes, they solicit one another. All the time. Everybody does, and must because content and procedure is decided through reversions and consensus, and say there's that Wikipedia e-mail button, so what can you expect? The game is to deny it while accusing others. Most will admit this when asked privately by someone they trust.

Yes, they attacked Moulton because they were obliged to do so to prevail in the content dispute. You think anyone is going to admit that?

Honesty gets you nowhere on Wikipedia, and frankly would prevent nearly anyone from being sysoped to begin with. It's all about the "gotcha!" and the game is to reveal no cha to be got.

To wit, good standing on Wikipedia depends on profession of loyalty to the system and its rules. But anyone who's been around there for awhile knows that the system doesn't work. The pro-science crowd knows that better than anyone, and backhandedly admits as much when they rightly complain that cautious pushers of fringe beliefs can persist indefinitely merely by remaining civil and not reverting too often (therefore we must resort to opportunistic accusations of lawless behavior to get rid of them.) When a contributor actually does something wrong, their content opponents are happy about this, because finally they have something to talk about (that they don't have to make up or misrepresent,) where someone who sincerely believed in the moral value of the rules would regret their breach.

If the system worked, all this solicitation and mutual back-up behavior wouldn't be necessary now, would it?

I appreciate the help that others give, but it should not be required that I recruit other editors to get around 3RR. I have come to the conclusion that [[WP:CON|consensus]] as it is explicated here is an extremely flawed ideal that essentially makes Wikipedia a community devoted to mob rule rather than the accurate explication of facts and ideas. Those who are committed to accuracy are effectively encouraged to create tight-nit, ever-vigilant [[WP:CABAL|cabals]] to edit war against the ignorant
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=139539241

[Giggy]

*shrug*

I have better things to do with my time then be described as a high school sage of wisdom.

[dtobias]

*shrug*

Atlas shrugged!

----------------
Now playing: Carly Simon - Nobody Does It Better
via FoxyTunes

[The Joy]

*shrug*

I have better things to do with my time then be described as a high school sage of wisdom.

Oh, noes! "hopefully we won't meet again at arbitration" will be taken to mean a personal attack or a crime against civility! A very blow against the WikiWay! Treason! Disinclining to acquiesce to their requests!

And to quote Voltaire: "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[Giggy]

*shrug*

I have better things to do with my time then be described as a high school sage of wisdom.

Oh, noes! "hopefully we won't meet again at arbitration" will be taken to mean a personal attack or a crime against civility! A very blow against the WikiWay! Treason! Disinclining to acquiesce to their requests!

Well, that just gives them more evidence then... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Sceptre]

I knew an RFC would end up like this. It's why: a) I don't like the process at all, and b) I took it straight to arbcom.