Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Editors _ ID Cabal Request for Comment
Posted by: 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_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Giggy.27s_off_site_personal_attacks
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Odd nature)
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 http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eZjaHq0EQMAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton of me. Two days ago, he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=FeloniousMonk&page=&year=2008&month=6 the entire page, even though both FM and Filll still http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence in at least three different RfC's or RfAr's.
Meantime, on Dave Souza's talk page, we find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave_souza#Moulton_pages:
QUOTE(Moulton Thread on Dave Souza's Talk Page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave_souza#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 http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/User_talk:Moulton.Answers.html 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence&action=edit&redlink=1 Filll linked to has been deleted, but I hesitate to contact FM about it directly. Gnixon (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
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 http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/User_talk:Moulton.Answers.html 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence&action=edit&redlink=1 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 http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/FeloniousMonk.Arbcom.Evidence.html#Responses_of_other_online_communities_to_Moulton 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 http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/FeloniousMonk.Arbcom.Evidence.html#Responses_of_other_online_communities_to_Moulton 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: LaraLove
I think someone should just look at Filll's contributions to that one page. It's appalling.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 12:07am) 
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_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Giggy.27s_off_site_personal_attacks
Here's the request: QUOTE
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:
QUOTE
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]]'' <sub>([[user talk:giggy|
]])</sub> 00:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
]])</sub> 00:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Subtext:
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).
Posted by: Giggy
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 11:08am)
...ID Cabal...
It's times like these I wish I didn't associate my WP username with my WR name.
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 20th June 2008, 11:11am)
I think someone should just look at Filll's contributions to that one page. It's appalling.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 20th June 2008, 11:16am)
...
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Wikipedia:Don.27t_accuse_someone_of_a_personal_attack_for_accusing_of_a_personal_attack somewhat ironic).
Posted by: Moulton
While we're on the subject, let's take a look at the first few of the items in FM's scathing http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eZjaHq0EQMAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton...
QUOTE(FM's Scathing Indictment of Moulton)
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eZjaHq0EQMAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#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.
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Picard, Wikipedia bio. In the comments he outs the employer of one Wikipedia editor commenting there: [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/08/scathing-glances.html]
- 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.: [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/09/blathersburg-address.html]
- 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: [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/10/spa-vs-spa.html] 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" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoulton&diff=214559331&oldid=214556478]
- [20 more bullet items]
OK, Scouts, here is your first assignment.
Go to the cited blog post at [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/08/scathing-glances.html] and identify the Wikipedia editor whom FM is referring to.
Next, go to the cited blog post at [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/09/blathersburg-address.html] and adjudge how vicious it is.
Finally, go to the cited blog post at [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/10/spa-vs-spa.html] and find the reference to a named Wikipedian.
Posted by: Gold heart
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 20th June 2008, 2:42am)
OK, Scouts, here is your first assignment.
Go to the cited blog post at [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/08/scathing-glances.html] and identify the Wikipedia editor whom FM is referring to.
Next, go to the cited blog post at [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/09/blathersburg-address.html] and adjudge how vicious it is.
Finally, go to the cited blog post at [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/10/spa-vs-spa.html] 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!
Posted by: Bob Boy
QUOTE(Gold heart @ Thu 19th June 2008, 9:18pm)
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!
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.
Posted by: Giggy
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 12:22pm)
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?
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 12:07am)
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_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Giggy.27s_off_site_personal_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.
Posted by: Moulton
I'm still waiting to find out if I'm a vile miscreant or not.
The suspense is killing me.
Posted by: Cla68
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 20th June 2008, 1:02am)
QUOTE(Odd nature)
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 http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eZjaHq0EQMAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton of me. Two days ago, he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=FeloniousMonk&page=&year=2008&month=6 the entire page, even though both FM and Filll still http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence in at least three different RfC's or RfAr's.
Meantime, on Dave Souza's talk page, we find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave_souza#Moulton_pages:
QUOTE(Moulton Thread on Dave Souza's Talk Page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave_souza#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 http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/User_talk:Moulton.Answers.html 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence&action=edit&redlink=1 Filll linked to has been deleted, but I hesitate to contact FM about it directly. Gnixon (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
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 http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/User_talk:Moulton.Answers.html 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence&action=edit&redlink=1 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 http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/FeloniousMonk.Arbcom.Evidence.html#Responses_of_other_online_communities_to_Moulton 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 http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/FeloniousMonk.Arbcom.Evidence.html#Responses_of_other_online_communities_to_Moulton 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.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 20th June 2008, 3:23am)
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
There's nothing so nourishing as to see the soft, harmless sysops on WP drained of their life forces...
--SkekTek
Posted by: Bob Boy
From the midst of his imminent desysopping, Felonious Monk declaims:
QUOTE
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=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FIntelligent_Design&diff=220504545&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.)
Posted by: Moulton
Welcome to http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@@.1de95db6/3.
Posted by: Giggy
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 3:10pm)
From the midst of his imminent desysopping, Felonious Monk declaims:
QUOTE
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=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FIntelligent_Design&diff=220504545&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.)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Facepalms. 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).
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Giggy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 6:35am)
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 3:10pm)
From the midst of his imminent desysopping, Felonious Monk declaims:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Facepalms. 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).QUOTE
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=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FIntelligent_Design&diff=220504545&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.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FIntelligent_Design&diff=220504545&oldid=220472252
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.
Posted by: Moulton
Case in point...
At RfC/ID, there is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#New_Evidence_Regarding_User:FeloniousMonk...
QUOTE(New Evidence Regarding User:FeloniousMonk)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#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)
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Opinionn 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.),[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosalind_Picard&diff=155440751&oldid=155435191] "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 http://hardnews.ansci.usu.edu/opinion/083107_wikipedia.html. 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. http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/08/scathing-glances.html, 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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18138&st=50&p=102836&#entry102836 via the on-wiki E-Mail feature. But he has never responded, either.
However, I do have evidence they read my personal blog.
Posted by: Moulton
Let's go back for a moment to that snippet which Dave Souza posted in that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#New_Evidence_Regarding_User:FeloniousMonk at RfC/ID...
QUOTE(Dave Souza snippet)
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. http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2007/08/scathing-glances.html, 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 http://hardnews.ansci.usu.edu/opinion/083107_wikipedia.html that Dave cites on the http://hardnews.ansci.usu.edu/index.htm originally appeared a few days earlier as a http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2007/08/wikipedia-and-ethics-in-online.html 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 http://www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu/about/about.htm http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/wiki.html#Republication_Request_from_Mike_Sweeney the blog post as an Op-Ed piece...
QUOTE(E-Mail from Mike Sweeney)
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
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Biographical_Information, in accordance with the policy of the HardNewsCafe that all published articles are bylined with the author's real name.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: Bob Boy
QUOTE(Rootology @ Fri 20th June 2008, 11:53am)
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.
Posted by: 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
Posted by: Bob Boy
Quote from Filll at the RfC talkpage:
QUOTE
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.
Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 10:00am)
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.
Posted by: LaraLove
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 1:00pm)
QUOTE(Rootology @ Fri 20th June 2008, 11:53am)
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.
Posted by: Bob Boy
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 20th June 2008, 12:11pm)
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.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Rootology @ Fri 20th June 2008, 5:08pm)
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.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 20th June 2008, 5:11pm)
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.
Posted by: Rootology
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 20th June 2008, 10:42am)
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.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 20th June 2008, 10:42am)
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.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 20th June 2008, 10:42am)
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.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Rootology @ Fri 20th June 2008, 6:38pm)
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
Posted by: LaraLove
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 20th June 2008, 2:04pm)
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 20th June 2008, 5:11pm)
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.
Posted by: Moulton
They are going to have to convene a Truth and Reconciliation Process, chaired by someone with the integrity of NewYorkBrad.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 20th June 2008, 8:10pm)
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?
QUOTE(ScienceApologist)
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=User_talk:ScienceApologist&diff=139553289&oldid=139539241
Posted by: Giggy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Disengaging
I have better things to do with my time then be described as a high school sage of wisdom.
Posted by: dtobias
QUOTE(Giggy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 10:00pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Disengaging
Atlas shrugged!
----------------
Now playing: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/carly+simon/track/nobody+does+it+better
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/
Posted by: The Joy
QUOTE(Giggy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 10:00pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Disengaging
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 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire: "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
Posted by: Giggy
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 21st June 2008, 1:01pm)
QUOTE(Giggy @ Fri 20th June 2008, 10:00pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Disengaging
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...
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: SirFozzie
Well, apropos of absolutely nothing at all, I think I'm going to take at least 72-96 hours of from WP to let my head clear. I know that anything I say there will not be A) Happily received, and B ) conducive to solve anything.
Wonder what will be left when I get back.
Posted by: The Joy
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Sat 21st June 2008, 12:16am)
Well, apropos of absolutely nothing at all, I think I'm going to take at least 72-96 hours of from WP to let my head clear. I know that anything I say there will not be A) Happily received, and B ) conducive to solve anything.
Wonder what will be left when I get back.
I thought you still had that headache from the Mantanmoreland fiasco?
Well, I took a break from the Review for about a week and came back to find it hacked and down! And it seems every time I go away for a weekend, some big drama breaks out on WP or WR. Who knows what might happen during your wikibreak?
This is the drama that doesn't end.
It just goes on and on, my friends.
Posted by: SirFozzie
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 21st June 2008, 12:30am)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Sat 21st June 2008, 12:16am)
Well, apropos of absolutely nothing at all, I think I'm going to take at least 72-96 hours of from WP to let my head clear. I know that anything I say there will not be A) Happily received, and B ) conducive to solve anything.
Wonder what will be left when I get back.
I thought you still had that headache from the Mantanmoreland fiasco?
Well, I took a break from the Review for about a week and came back to find it hacked and down! And it seems every time I go away for a weekend, some big drama breaks out on WP or WR. Who knows what might happen during your wikibreak?
This is the drama that doesn't end.
It just goes on and on, my friends.
Eh. That one faded in time (Him getting caught again, etcetera).
new day, new headache.
And I find it funny you're singing the Lamb Chop song (that's how I remember it
)
Posted by: Moulton
I recommend listening to the Internet Chat Room Folk Anthem...
http://ultra.musenet.org:8020/media/slouching.html
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 21st June 2008, 4:30am)
Well, I took a break from the Review for about a week and came back to find it hacked and down! And it seems every time I go away for a weekend, some big drama breaks out on WP or WR. Who knows what might happen during your wikibreak?
This is the drama that doesn't end.
It just goes on and on, my friends.
Welcome to the Hotel Wikipedia
(You can never leave)
Last thing I remember was
Tryin to find log off
I had to find the mouse click back
Before I could nod off
Chill out, said the Root 'Min,
We are programmed with your pass.
You can sign out any time you like,
But we still have your ass!
Posted by: SirFozzie
*laughs*
One of my cow-orkers sent me an email with a link to a clip from the old game show "Match Game" (anyone remember that?)
I had a WR version of the clip half written up last night after work before I gave up (it was a good stress relief tho!)
Posted by: Sxeptomaniac
Well, I have to admit that Filll's pretentious attempt to take the high road by telling his opponents to disengage was pretty funny. I'd already seen that the RfC had ceased making any forward momentum, so, while it's still on my watchlist, I wasn't interested in debating much more.
If everything goes as planned, I'm going to do a little camping, hiking, and maybe fishing this weekend. I've got enough real-world things trying to cause me stress, so WP and the ID RfC really don't rate too high. There's nothing like the mountains for a little peace and perspective.
QUOTE('Norman Maclean @ "USFS 1919: The Ranger, the Cook, and a Hole in the Sky"')
It is surprising how much our souls are alike, at least in the presence of mountains. For all of us, mountains turn into images after a short time and the images turn true. Gold-tossed waves change into the purple backs of monsters, and so forth. Always something out of the moving deep, and nearly always oceanic. Never a lake, never the sky. But no matter what images I began with, when I watched long enough the mountains turned into dreams, and still do, and it works the other way around--often, waking from dreams, I know I have been in the mountains, and I know they have been moving--sometimes advancing threateningly, sometimes creeping hesitantly, sometimes receding endlessly. Both mountains and dreams.
Posted by: The Joy
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Sat 21st June 2008, 12:54am)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 21st June 2008, 12:30am)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Sat 21st June 2008, 12:16am)
Well, apropos of absolutely nothing at all, I think I'm going to take at least 72-96 hours of from WP to let my head clear. I know that anything I say there will not be A) Happily received, and B ) conducive to solve anything.
Wonder what will be left when I get back.
I thought you still had that headache from the Mantanmoreland fiasco?
Well, I took a break from the Review for about a week and came back to find it hacked and down! And it seems every time I go away for a weekend, some big drama breaks out on WP or WR. Who knows what might happen during your wikibreak?
This is the drama that doesn't end.
It just goes on and on, my friends.
Eh. That one faded in time (Him getting caught again, etcetera).
new day, new headache.
And I find it funny you're singing the Lamb Chop song (that's how I remember it
)And I have been trying to find a video clip of Lamb Chop covering her ears and yelling "MAKE IT STOP! MAKE IT STOP! MAKE IT STOP!" while the other puppets and Shari Lewis sang the song. I could have sworn it existed, but Wikipedia, YouTube, and Photobucket seem to suggest it does not exist. But I know it does, I remember it! It must have been with the older episodes.
Anyone that doesn't think this has anything to with Wikipedia just does not understand that I am looking for a video of sockpuppets terrorizing each other while pleas for calm and order are ignored. If Wikipedia were a cult, my thesis would be it all began with Lamb Chop and it will all end with Lamb Chop. The Four Sockpuppets of the Wiki-pocalypse!
Posted by: SirFozzie
the only time I remember it was at the end of a show, and all the kiddies and the puppets were singing it and driving Shari lewis mad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTxr2NJHa0
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Sat 21st June 2008, 3:55am)
The only time I remember it was at the end of a show, and all the kiddies and the puppets were singing it and driving Shari lewis mad.
Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop
Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop
Oh, wow. I loved Shari Lewis, but I never realized she had her own children's show. Doubleplus she was another redhead. No wonder I adored her so much.
Posted by: Cla68
I just left my own outside view in the RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Outside_view_by_Cla68
Posted by: LaraLove
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 22nd June 2008, 11:28pm)
I just left my own outside view in the RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Outside_view_by_Cla68
Good times. When/If this makes it back to ArbCom, I have a feeling there will be a lot of links to talk page posts which will be considered by some to be harassment. I have some from my archives that I'd be happy to share.
Posted by: Cla68
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 23rd June 2008, 3:44am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 22nd June 2008, 11:28pm)
I just left my own outside view in the RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Outside_view_by_Cla68
Good times. When/If this makes it back to ArbCom, I have a feeling there will be a lot of links to talk page posts which will be considered by some to be harassment. I have some from my archives that I'd be happy to share.
Someone brought this up in another thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=220565263#User:Orangemarlin. Unfortunately, it appears that increased adult supervision for some of these editors will still be necessary if this type of behavior continues.
Posted by: Giggy
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 23rd June 2008, 1:28pm)
I just left my own outside view in the RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Outside_view_by_Cla68
Wikipedia Review. The only watchlist I need.
Posted by: Sxeptomaniac
Wow... Filll has really got some over-the-top claims about the evidence he's not actually going to show anyone.
QUOTE(09:51 @ June 24, 2008 Filll)
I do not think so. I think if I mounted a serious defense, a good half dozen or more people's feelings would be badly hurt, right off the bat. I think that they would feel they would have to defend against my posts, and attack me even more fiercely. And I would have to respond. And so on. It would fill many many kilobytes. It would take many days, or weeks, or months. It would just inflame the dispute.
Look at how upset people were at the barebones RfC that was deleted. People were upset they were named. People said it was unfair. And on and on and on. And that RfC did not even get started. There was no meat on those bones at all. It was the barest beginning.
You would see Wikipedia Review completely outraged. There would be a massive campaign to recruit more people to attack and threaten. The attacks would escalate. People who were blocked 6 months or a year or two ago would get excited and jump on the bandwagon.
Look at how upset people were at the barebones RfC that was deleted. People were upset they were named. People said it was unfair. And on and on and on. And that RfC did not even get started. There was no meat on those bones at all. It was the barest beginning.
You would see Wikipedia Review completely outraged. There would be a massive campaign to recruit more people to attack and threaten. The attacks would escalate. People who were blocked 6 months or a year or two ago would get excited and jump on the bandwagon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design&diff=221476939&oldid=221471182
I considered adding some commentary, but how can I top a quote like that?
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 25th June 2008, 12:43am)
QUOTE(Filll)
You would see Wikipedia Review completely outraged. There would be a massive campaign to recruit more people to attack and threaten. The attacks would escalate. People who were blocked 6 months or a year or two ago would get excited and jump on the bandwagon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design&diff=221476939&oldid=221471182
I considered adding some commentary, but how can I top a quote like that?
Where on earth is this coming from? There have been some uncivilized threads in recent months, to be sure, but this hasn't been one of them. I don't see anyone threatening Filll or anyone else. Not even attacking them, really. It's more a series of complaints about their tactics.
Posted by: Cla68
QUOTE(Filll)
You would see Wikipedia Review completely outraged. There would be a massive campaign to recruit more people to attack and threaten. The attacks would escalate. People who were blocked 6 months or a year or two ago would get excited and jump on the bandwagon.
"Yossarian snarled, arguing all the more vehemently because he suspected he was wrong."
- Catch-22
http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~sujith/catch-22.txt
Posted by: Viridae
Tony the troll is so FUNNY! Busily telling other off for making claims without evidence despite repeatedly being asked to provide evidence for his own claims. I really am wondering whether he actually believes his own rhetoric. All he needs to do now is claim that MM was never ever guilty of sockpuppetry. That would be the icing on the cake.
Posted by: Moulton
Filll says he is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Disengaging...
QUOTE(Filll Disengages)
* I have been named as a party and I have been repeatedly attacked in the RfAr and on this RfC and on another RfC, and on the associated talk pages. I have not responded in any substantive way to any of the accusations, although I have plenty to say. I have disengaged.
* I have not counterattacked my accusers, although I could easily do so. I have disengaged.
* I have not posted my name or made comments several places on this RfC where I could. I have disengaged.
* The section I contributed to this RfC is tiny and paltry, and only consists of an appeal to disengage. This is not evidence of me not disengaging, surely.
* I removed a blog post I made about a related "peace conference" on request, although I have plenty to say about it. The other participant in the peace conference has left his blatant attacks on me, but I have removed my response to these attacks and my side of the story. I have not answered these attacks; I have disengaged.
* I have removed or struck comments on these RfC pages and associated talk pages; I have disengaged.
* Most of my posts for the last couple of weeks have been pleas for disengagement. I do not think that a plea for disengagement is evidence of someone who declines to disengage or someone who has not disengaged.
* I have stopped editing completely the articles that some regard as problematic and at the core of this dispute. I have disengaged.
* I have stopped voting in any RfAs, RfBs or similar polls, which also figured in accusations and attacks against me. I have disengaged.
* I have declined several requests for me to present my side of the story at WP:NTWW. I have disengaged.
* I stopped answering any attacks on me by User:Moulton on his pages. I disengaged.
So in light of all this, I would ask you to please show me how I have not "disengaged".--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
* I have not counterattacked my accusers, although I could easily do so. I have disengaged.
* I have not posted my name or made comments several places on this RfC where I could. I have disengaged.
* The section I contributed to this RfC is tiny and paltry, and only consists of an appeal to disengage. This is not evidence of me not disengaging, surely.
* I removed a blog post I made about a related "peace conference" on request, although I have plenty to say about it. The other participant in the peace conference has left his blatant attacks on me, but I have removed my response to these attacks and my side of the story. I have not answered these attacks; I have disengaged.
* I have removed or struck comments on these RfC pages and associated talk pages; I have disengaged.
* Most of my posts for the last couple of weeks have been pleas for disengagement. I do not think that a plea for disengagement is evidence of someone who declines to disengage or someone who has not disengaged.
* I have stopped editing completely the articles that some regard as problematic and at the core of this dispute. I have disengaged.
* I have stopped voting in any RfAs, RfBs or similar polls, which also figured in accusations and attacks against me. I have disengaged.
* I have declined several requests for me to present my side of the story at WP:NTWW. I have disengaged.
* I stopped answering any attacks on me by User:Moulton on his pages. I disengaged.
So in light of all this, I would ask you to please show me how I have not "disengaged".--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Filll has disengaged. Let's sing it loud and sing it clear...
http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/I.Will.Disengage.html
Midi Accompaniment: http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/i-will-survive.mid
First I was afraid, I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live with Moulton at my side
But I spent so many nights thinking how you did me wrong
I grew strong and I learned how to carry on
And now he's back from outer space
I just logged in to find him here with that vexed look upon his face
I should have changed my Yahoo name, I should have made him leave in shame
If I had known for just one second he'd be back in search of grace
Go on now, go walk on out the door, just turn around now
'Cause you're not welcome anymore
Weren't you the one who hurled a http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-due-process-died.html
Did you think I'd crumble? Did you think I'd lay down and die?
Oh no, not I, I'll disengage
As long as I am on the stage, I know that I will vent my rage
I've got all my life to live, I'll give all my foes a shiv
And I'll disengage, I'll disengage, hey, hey
It took all the strength I had not to become sick
Kept trying hard to mend the fractures of my broken clique
And I spent oh so many nights just feeling sorry for myself
I used to sigh but now I hold my mouse up high
And you see me, somebody new
I'm not that chagrined Wikipedian still livid about you
And so you felt like dropping in and just expect me to be nice
But now I'm saving all my comments for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeloniousMonke
Go on now go walk out the door, just turn around now
'Cause you're not welcome anymore
Weren't you the one who hurled at me a http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-due-process-died.html
Did you think I'd crumble? Did you think I'd lay down and die?
Oh no, not I, I'll disengage
As long as I know how to jive, I know that I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live, I'll give all my foes a shiv
And I'll disengage, I'll disengage, oh
Go on now go walk out the door, just turn around now
'Cause you're not welcome anymore
Weren't you the one who hurled at me a http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-due-process-died.html
Did you think I'd crumble? Did you think I'd lay down and die?
Oh no, not I, I'll disengage
As long as I am on the stage, I know that I will vent my rage
I've got all my life to live, I'll give all my foes a shiv
And I'll disengage, I'll disengage, I'll disengage
CopyClef 2008, Barsoom Tork Associates.
Midi Accompaniment: http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/i-will-survive.mid
First I was afraid, I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live with Moulton at my side
But I spent so many nights thinking how you did me wrong
I grew strong and I learned how to carry on
And now he's back from outer space
I just logged in to find him here with that vexed look upon his face
I should have changed my Yahoo name, I should have made him leave in shame
If I had known for just one second he'd be back in search of grace
Go on now, go walk on out the door, just turn around now
'Cause you're not welcome anymore
Weren't you the one who hurled a http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-due-process-died.html
Did you think I'd crumble? Did you think I'd lay down and die?
Oh no, not I, I'll disengage
As long as I am on the stage, I know that I will vent my rage
I've got all my life to live, I'll give all my foes a shiv
And I'll disengage, I'll disengage, hey, hey
It took all the strength I had not to become sick
Kept trying hard to mend the fractures of my broken clique
And I spent oh so many nights just feeling sorry for myself
I used to sigh but now I hold my mouse up high
And you see me, somebody new
I'm not that chagrined Wikipedian still livid about you
And so you felt like dropping in and just expect me to be nice
But now I'm saving all my comments for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeloniousMonke
Go on now go walk out the door, just turn around now
'Cause you're not welcome anymore
Weren't you the one who hurled at me a http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-due-process-died.html
Did you think I'd crumble? Did you think I'd lay down and die?
Oh no, not I, I'll disengage
As long as I know how to jive, I know that I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live, I'll give all my foes a shiv
And I'll disengage, I'll disengage, oh
Go on now go walk out the door, just turn around now
'Cause you're not welcome anymore
Weren't you the one who hurled at me a http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-due-process-died.html
Did you think I'd crumble? Did you think I'd lay down and die?
Oh no, not I, I'll disengage
As long as I am on the stage, I know that I will vent my rage
I've got all my life to live, I'll give all my foes a shiv
And I'll disengage, I'll disengage, I'll disengage
CopyClef 2008, Barsoom Tork Associates.
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 24th June 2008, 8:06pm)
Tony the troll is so FUNNY! Busily telling other off for making claims without evidence despite repeatedly being asked to provide evidence for his own claims. I really am wondering whether he actually believes his own rhetoric. All he needs to do now is claim that MM was never ever guilty of sockpuppetry. That would be the icing on the cake.
He comes close.
QUOTE
Please be serious. I understand your problems with the Mantanmoreland arbitration in which I disagreed with your attack on the Committee's decision and the lynchmob that was subsequently got up by other parties. I understand your disagreement with me on the Cla68 arbitration. Neither of those disagreements, in which you (as a person) disagree with me (as a person) justifies your personal attack on a party (who is not me or even anyone I have ever engaged with) involved in this RFC. Would you please engage with my contention that,your behavior her is inexplicable, unjustified by the evidence, reprehinsible, and intrinsically damaging to Wikipedia? And I'm one of the guys who *like* you. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 25th June 2008, 12:51am)
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Wed 25th June 2008, 12:43am)
QUOTE(Filll)
You would see Wikipedia Review completely outraged. There would be a massive campaign to recruit more people to attack and threaten. The attacks would escalate. People who were blocked 6 months or a year or two ago would get excited and jump on the bandwagon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design&diff=221476939&oldid=221471182
I considered adding some commentary, but how can I top a quote like that?
Where on earth is this coming from? There have been some uncivilized threads in recent months, to be sure, but this hasn't been one of them. I don't see anyone threatening Filll or anyone else. Not even attacking them, really. It's more a series of complaints about their tactics.
Well, the third L is a little light on its feet, if you know what I mean (and I think you do).
The one-l FIL
Controls the luge.
The two-l FILL
Mean topped-up huge.
And I will bet
An old champaign
That three-L FILLL
Is Nathan Lane.
Or not. But that was fun.
N.B. Yes, I'm aware of the Ogden Nash poem. Thanks.
Posted by: Moulton
Filll exhibits an interesting trait — the construction and publication of a theory of mind, this time about not a single individual, but about the collective mindset of WR. Is it a judicious theory of mind or a haphazard theory of mind?
How can we reliably evaluate his proposed collective theory of mind of WR and determine its accuracy as a valid hypothesis and scientific model?
Filll uses his scientific model to make a prediction about the future behavior of WR. That future has not yet occurred, so we are in an excellent position to observe how insightful a scientist is our Filll in terms of crafting insightful scientific theories that make accurate predictions.
Posted by: Neil
I don't know how to put images in my messages here, but I was bored and made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WordcloudIDRFC.JPG.
Posted by: Moulton
CODE
[Center]
[img]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WordcloudIDRFC.JPG[/img]
[size=3][b]Neil's Image[/b][/size]
[/Center]
Neil's Image
Posted by: Neil
Ooh, fabberlous. I didn't realise you could hotlink from Wikipedia.
Posted by: Moulton
All Things Snotty
Let's add a song to go with Neil's fabulous Wiki Word Cloud...
ARTIST: Barsoom Tork
TITLE: You're So Mean
MIDI: http://ultra.musenet.org:8020/media/sovain.mid
You waltzed into the Wiki
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your words pretending to be so kind
Your background was LightGreySnot
You had one eye on the watchlist
As you watched yourself get caught
And you dreamed you'd be everyone's partner
They'd be your partner, and...
You're so mean
You probably think this blog is about you
You're so mean
I'll bet you think this snark is about you
Don't you? Don't you?
You rebuked me several months ago
When I was still quite naive
Well, you said that we made such a nasty pair
And that you would never leave
But you threw away the things they loved
And one of them was me
I had some dreams there were clods in the Café
Clouds in the Wiki, and...
You're so mean
You probably think this rant is about you
You're so mean
I'll bet you think this snark is about you
Don't you? Don't you?
I had some dreams there were clods in the Café
Clouds in the Wiki, and...
You're so mean
You probably think this thread is about you
You're so mean
I'll bet you think this snark is about you
Don't you? Don't you?
Well, I hear you went up to RfC
And your clique naturally won
Then you sent snotmail in confidence
To see what total harm could be done
Well, you're down here, playing childish games
And when you're not, you're with
Some WikiClique spy or the strife of a close friend
Strife of a close friend, and
You're so mean
You probably think this song is about you
You're so mean
I'll bet you think this snark is about you
Don't you? Don't you?
CopyClef 1998-2008 Carly Simon and Barsoom Tork.
North Amurcan Bupkis, exclusive Internet dispiritor.
"At North Amurcan Bupkis, we're always in your face."
Posted by: Cla68
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 25th June 2008, 10:57am)
I don't know how to put images in my messages here, but I was bored and made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WordcloudIDRFC.JPG.
I think Neil's graphic should replace whatever image is currently used in the WikiProject Intelligent Design project box.
Posted by: Neil
I've just found out wordle.net word clouds are released under "CC-by-NC", which means while they are free, sort of, they are strictly for non-commercial use only, so aren't allowed to be on Wikipedia. Boooo.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 25th June 2008, 9:01am)
I think Neil's graphic should replace whatever image is currently used in the WikiProject Intelligent Design project box.
Their current logo is a ticking time bomb...
Where's the Kaboom?
There should have been an earth-shattering Kaboom.
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 25th June 2008, 9:31am)
I've just found out wordle.net word clouds are released under "CC-by-NC", which means while they are free, sort of, they are strictly for non-commercial use only, so aren't allowed to be on Wikipedia. Boooo.
Wikipedia is not a commercial site. It's an educational non-profit site. It charges no fees for services, has no owners, and doesn't make or distribute profits.
That's why it's a .org site and not a .com site.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 2:36pm)
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 25th June 2008, 9:31am)
I've just found out wordle.net word clouds are released under "CC-by-NC", which means while they are free, sort of, they are strictly for non-commercial use only, so aren't allowed to be on Wikipedia. Boooo.
Wikipedia is not a commercial site. It's an educational non-profit site. It charges no fees for services, has no owners, and doesn't make or distribute profits.
True, but material on Wikipedia must be licensed so that commercial use can be made of it if anyone wants to. (One wonders why.)
Posted by: Moulton
Any entrepreneur can make commercial use of general knowledge.
What's relevant here is whether the Neil's Wacky Wiki Word Cloud is a copyrighted work, and if so, who owns the copyright.
If Neil owns the copyright, he can give it away or post it to Commons under a more restrictive license.
If I am reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses correctly, CC-by-NC is one of the supported licensing options on Wikimedia's Creative Commons. All Neil has to do is to select that licensing option, and he is good to go.
Posted by: Neil
Well, the text is from Wikipedia (and is thus GFDL)
And I then took the text and pasted it into the field and clicked "Create".
But the program at wordle.net analysed the text for word patterns and frequency and the like using (according to the FAQ) proprietry code and assembled it into a pretty picture.
I would presume this means the copyright belongs to wordle.net, which is CC-by-NC 3.0, which means it can only be used for non commercial use. Such a restriction means it isn't fully "free", as GFDL and CC-by-SA allow subsequent commercial use. Ours is not to reason why.
UPDATE
Ah, the outstanding Mr Feinberg has got back to me.
The site itself is CC-by-nc-sa (meaning attribution, non-commercial, and sharealike is required)
But the word clouds are cc-by, meaning all that is required is attribution. He has clarified this on the site's (www.wordle.net)'s FAQ.
Huzzah!
To celebrate, here's another one, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence:
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 10:06am)
If I am reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses correctly, CC-by-NC is one of the supported licensing options on Wikimedia's Creative Commons. All Neil has to do is to select that licensing option, and he is good to go.
You're not reading it correctly, or it's wrong. CC-by-NC is not a supported license type on Commons. Downstream commercial use must be allowed. CC-by-NC doesn't allow that, since it's "non commercial"
Posted by: Moulton
Neil, can you do a Wacky Wiki Word Cloud for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton?
Posted by: Sxeptomaniac
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 25th June 2008, 3:57am)
I don't know how to put images in my messages here, but I was bored and made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WordcloudIDRFC.JPG.
Nice. http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/31116/RfCraze, though I didn't take the time to upload it to WP at this point.
Posted by: Neil
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 5:25pm)
Neil, can you do a Wacky Wiki Word Cloud for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton?
Sure - for a word cloud for Talk:Moulton, click http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/31138/Wikipedia_-_Talk:Moulton.
Posted by: Dzonatas
I tried the User Contributions page (last 500 edits), or http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/31163/Where_she_edits_most.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 25th June 2008, 2:05pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 5:25pm)
Neil, can you do a Wacky Wiki Word Cloud for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton?
Sure - for a word cloud for Talk:Moulton, click http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/31138/Wikipedia_-_Talk:Moulton.How do I save the just the image as a JPEG file?
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 5:23pm)
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 25th June 2008, 2:05pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 5:25pm)
Neil, can you do a Wacky Wiki Word Cloud for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton?
Sure - for a word cloud for Talk:Moulton, click http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/31138/Wikipedia_-_Talk:Moulton.How do I save the just the image as a JPEG file?
The FAQ explains it. Do a screencap and edit away the part you don't like.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 25th June 2008, 7:13pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 5:23pm)
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 25th June 2008, 2:05pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 5:25pm)
Neil, can you do a Wacky Wiki Word Cloud for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton?
Sure - for a word cloud for Talk:Moulton, click http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/31138/Wikipedia_-_Talk:Moulton.How do I save just the image as a JPEG file?
The FAQ explains it. Do a screencap and edit away the part you don't like.
Bleagh. First I had to install Java. Now I have to install Photoshop?
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 7:16pm)
QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 25th June 2008, 7:13pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 5:23pm)
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 25th June 2008, 2:05pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 25th June 2008, 5:25pm)
Neil, can you do a Wacky Wiki Word Cloud for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton?
Sure - for a word cloud for Talk:Moulton, click http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/31138/Wikipedia_-_Talk:Moulton.How do I save just the image as a JPEG file?
The FAQ explains it. Do a screencap and edit away the part you don't like.
Bleagh. First I had to install Java. Now I have to install Photoshop?
I think you can do it in MS Paint.
Posted by: Cla68
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 25th June 2008, 2:16pm)
To celebrate, here's another one...
This is great, but it needs to include the words "harassment" and "stalking" in there somewhere.
Posted by: Moulton
Getting back on topic...
At the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Filll#Enough, we find this...
QUOTE(Filll's Talk Page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Filll#Enough
This has gone far enough. Stop adding attacks on me to your userspace, accusing me of being a "Wikipedia Review editor." I don't condone or promote that site at all, and on the contrary I was outed by them and members have tried to make disturbing advances on me there. Please stop trying to smear and provoke me. krimpet✽ 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This has gone far enough. Stop adding attacks on me to your userspace, accusing me of being a "Wikipedia Review editor." I don't condone or promote that site at all, and on the contrary I was outed by them and members have tried to make disturbing advances on me there. Please stop trying to smear and provoke me. krimpet✽ 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove material that is part of an Arbcomm proceeding. Thanks. And it did not explicitly label you as a "Wikipedia Review editor", did it? Although you are a member of Wikipedia Review and an editor here, so it is quite accurate, isn't it? --Filll (talk | wpc) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
And yet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Statement_by_FeloniousMonk that he has since http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=FeloniousMonk&page=User+talk%3AFeloniousMonk%2FCla68+Arbcom+evidence&year=&month=-1 and then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=FeloniousMonk&page=User+talk%3AFeloniousMonk%2FArbcom+evidence&year=&month=-1.
Moreover, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design&diff=219293871&oldid=219292948 at RfC/ID.
And for the record, I've asked that the deleted page (which http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/f/e/l/User_talk~FeloniousMonk_Arbcom_evidence_4828.html) be restored as it has been placed into evidence by two of the ID Editors.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Krimpet)
This has gone far enough. Stop adding attacks on me to your userspace, accusing me of being a "Wikipedia Review editor." I don't condone or promote that site at all, and on the contrary I was outed by them and members have tried to make disturbing advances on me there. Please stop trying to smear and provoke me. krimpet✽ 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Filll&diff=221748951&oldid=221187473
I don't remember anything like this happening.
Is there some other site called "Wikipedia Review"? It would explain a lot.
Posted by: Moulton
My recollection is that Daniel Brandt had added an entry on Krimpet to HiveMind, another Wikipedian http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18596.
Posted by: Moulton
I'd like to go back to the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design ...
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Statement_of_the_dispute
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Desired outcome
Description
There are a series of disagreements. I will attempt to outline some.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Desired outcome
- That articles on Wikipedia serve our goals of collecting and developing educational content and to disseminating it effectively and globally.
- That editors be able to edit such content with a minimum of conflict and strife.
- That such content follow our policies, including but not limited to representing a Neutral Point of View, being Verifiable in Reliable Sources and not consisting of Original Research.
Description
There are a series of disagreements. I will attempt to outline some.
MoultonOther users who endorse this summary
User:Moulton is blocked/banned due to disruption. Some believe he should be unblocked. Others disagree.
Civility
Some of the users in this dispute are alleged to have been incivil. Other users are alleged to be racists of some sort.
Cabalism
Some of the users in this dispute are alleged to act as a cabal to prevent Intelligent Design from being discussed fairly. Other of the users in this dispute are alleged to act as a cabal to engage in behavior that does not help in building the encyclopedia, but rather is either actively detrimental or serves as a non-helpful backdrop of drama and poor feelings.
Personalizing
Some of the users in this dispute are alleged to have personalized disputes.
- PouponOnToast (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) The desired outcome portion, at this time.
- Odd nature (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Guettarda (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ameriquedialectics 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (I don't see anything to disagree with here so far as the desired outcome and parameters of the dispute are described. I would need to see more concrete diffs on all named users before i signed off on SirFozzie's section.)
- OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- dave souza, talk 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Accurate and neutral summary of the problem. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that my name is the only one that appears in the Description, is there some reason why I am not entitled to participate in the resolution?
Posted by: SirFozzie
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 25th June 2008, 8:26pm)
QUOTE(Krimpet)
This has gone far enough. Stop adding attacks on me to your userspace, accusing me of being a "Wikipedia Review editor." I don't condone or promote that site at all, and on the contrary I was outed by them and members have tried to make disturbing advances on me there. Please stop trying to smear and provoke me. krimpet✽ 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Filll&diff=221748951&oldid=221187473
I don't remember anything like this happening.
Is there some other site called "Wikipedia Review"? It would explain a lot.
She's referring to your comments about her hotness, etcetera.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Thu 26th June 2008, 2:46am)
She's referring to your comments about her hotness, etcetera.
How should you know what she's referring to? It's not obvious.
By "etc.", do you mean me inviting her to apologize for her unprovoked aggression? Some "advance."
For the sake of humor I was being far more generous than I might have otherwise been (and people often provide only headshots for a reason.) What, would you prefer I yell at her for being such a hypocrite and a liar? She condemns WR for outing her - though it was Brandt who did, and Alison who announced it here - but when a member of Wikipedia Review really did out someone, what did she do?
There were no "disturbing advances" from anyone on this site, and she knows it. She also knows that you can say whatever lies you want about WR without anyone calling you on it - in fact, it's nearly required - so she does it because it wins her loyalty points and because she's a dishonest person.
Even when I agree with her, the dishonesty is painful. Didn't she state that she came across the Picard issue on her own, never having read about here? Please. Just like Elonka didn't solicit her on IRC.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 25th June 2008, 11:05pm)
Didn't she state that she came across the Picard issue on her own, never having read about here?
I'm pretty sure I would have done a double take had I seen anything like that. To the best of my knowledge, she picked up on the Picard BLP from something I had posted here.
What she stated is that she was not a meatpuppet, but acted on her own volition to correct the article.
Posted by: SirFozzie
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 25th June 2008, 11:05pm)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Thu 26th June 2008, 2:46am)
She's referring to your comments about her hotness, etcetera.
How should you know what she's referring to? It's not obvious.
I, you know... talked with her?
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Thu 26th June 2008, 4:19am)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 25th June 2008, 11:05pm)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Thu 26th June 2008, 2:46am)
She's referring to your comments about her hotness, etcetera.
How should you know what she's referring to? It's not obvious.
I, you know... talked with her?
There you go, an honest answer.
Following are some dishonest answers.
QUOTE(Krimpet)
"I came across this BLP, which hadn't been edited since last year, and noticed that the paragraph about her signing that creationism petition seemed a disjointed and tangential.â€
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosalind_Picard&diff=210251331&oldid=210251070 04:10, 5 May 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=210236319 02:22, 5 May 2008
“Wow, lovely, the page is even being used to smear me with the same brush for making a single edit to a BLP that was apparently a favorite of his.â€
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=212395005 17:37, 14 May 2008
“Someone mentioned the article in passing on IRC and I clicked on it - as a fellow woman in computing, her article piqued my interest - and I noticed it was a BLP mess and a [[WP:COATRACK|COATRACK]], so I made a couple tweaks to improve it.â€
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=prev&oldid=212538337
05:16, 15 May 2008
The week before, I had tried to fix a coatracky BLP on a woman in the field of computer science, 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#A_first-hand_experience_of_bullying_by_FeloniousMonk
She knows damned well that there were no "disturbing advances" made to her by any member of this site.
And she does have an account on this site. She has posted here and she does read it. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Her answers to her accusers are dishonest and everyone knows it. If I were on the other side of that debate, I would walk away from that conversation with contempt.
Lies are okay if no one can super-duper prove they're wrong! Assume good faith!
The right answer is, yeah, I saw Moulton's posts on Wikipedia Review, I looked into it, and he's right. What's so hard about that?
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 26th June 2008, 12:28am)
The right answer is, yeah, I saw Moulton's posts on Wikipedia Review, I looked into it, and he's right. What's so hard about that?
It's quite possible that Krimpet picked up on the Picard BLP as a result of someone's comment on IRC. The one place here where Krimpet and I had previously http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17414&st=463&p=96706&#entry96706. And in that brief exchange, the issue under discussion was Daniel Brandt's outing of NYBrad and the unsolved problem of BLPs in general.
Posted by: Moulton
Dave Souza adds a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#View_by_dave_souza to RfC/ID discussion...
QUOTE(Dave Souza @ RfC/ID Discussion, 21:36, 26 June 2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#View_by_dave_souza
This RfC opened with desired outcomes in terms of article content policies, and in relation to behaviour "That editors be able to edit such content with a minimum of conflict and strife." The description notes disagreements about civility, allegations of cabalism with reference to some users dealing with intelligent design and others allegedly creating a non-helpful backdrop of drama and poor feelings, as well as some alleged personalized disputes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Viewpoint_of_SirFozzie named specific users who deal with intelligent design, and stated an aim of getting them and others to "act in a more collegial manner", citing name-calling, well-poisoning and use of loaded terms to describe other editors as behaviour to be avoided. While SirFozzie then produced flimsy evidence of alleged problems, putting an exaggerated slant on complex issues, the aims in terms of behaviour are worthwhile and I am glad to see that the named editors have accepted that their behaviour is part of the problem, and that they need to be more civil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#View_by_User:Rocksanddirt gave a perceptive analysis of an underlying problem of uncivil "labelling" coming across as harassment. It was widely accepted that everyone should refrain from labelling editors in group terms.
It was therefore disappointing to find that a subsequent thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review was titled "ID Cabal Request for Comment", and that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Outside_view_by_Cla68 alleges "problematic behavior by a group of editors whose account names feature prominently in this RfC". In my opinion the evidence Cla68 presents does not stand up to detailed examination, and he shows a remarkable sensitivity to criticism, particularly when he seems untroubled by what WR's provisional posting rules apparently call "the bounds of decorum that operate here". More significantly, he is talking in terms of "behavior by this group". Editors who have posted to Wikipedia Review have very reasonably objected to being described as "Wikipedia Review editors" or "Wikipedia Review members" as though that defines their behaviour, and similarly they should not stereotype other users.
From a recent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review thread it seems that there have been complaints there about editors working on intelligent design as long ago as June 2006, and a post there dated 6th July 2007 apparently alleged a "Science cabal" editing on Global warming, intelligent design and so on.[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18456&pid=105628&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry105628] This does seem to be a pervasive atmosphere on that forum, and all editors here must be careful to set aside such prejudices and poisoning of the well in order to contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner.
In conclusion, there have been faults all round, and we should all endeavour to achieve higher standards of behaviour. Doubtless there will be occasional lapses which should be treated in a way that defuses tensions rather than building up drama, but these principles should be followed –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dave_souza, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave_souza 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This RfC opened with desired outcomes in terms of article content policies, and in relation to behaviour "That editors be able to edit such content with a minimum of conflict and strife." The description notes disagreements about civility, allegations of cabalism with reference to some users dealing with intelligent design and others allegedly creating a non-helpful backdrop of drama and poor feelings, as well as some alleged personalized disputes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Viewpoint_of_SirFozzie named specific users who deal with intelligent design, and stated an aim of getting them and others to "act in a more collegial manner", citing name-calling, well-poisoning and use of loaded terms to describe other editors as behaviour to be avoided. While SirFozzie then produced flimsy evidence of alleged problems, putting an exaggerated slant on complex issues, the aims in terms of behaviour are worthwhile and I am glad to see that the named editors have accepted that their behaviour is part of the problem, and that they need to be more civil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#View_by_User:Rocksanddirt gave a perceptive analysis of an underlying problem of uncivil "labelling" coming across as harassment. It was widely accepted that everyone should refrain from labelling editors in group terms.
It was therefore disappointing to find that a subsequent thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review was titled "ID Cabal Request for Comment", and that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Outside_view_by_Cla68 alleges "problematic behavior by a group of editors whose account names feature prominently in this RfC". In my opinion the evidence Cla68 presents does not stand up to detailed examination, and he shows a remarkable sensitivity to criticism, particularly when he seems untroubled by what WR's provisional posting rules apparently call "the bounds of decorum that operate here". More significantly, he is talking in terms of "behavior by this group". Editors who have posted to Wikipedia Review have very reasonably objected to being described as "Wikipedia Review editors" or "Wikipedia Review members" as though that defines their behaviour, and similarly they should not stereotype other users.
From a recent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review thread it seems that there have been complaints there about editors working on intelligent design as long ago as June 2006, and a post there dated 6th July 2007 apparently alleged a "Science cabal" editing on Global warming, intelligent design and so on.[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18456&pid=105628&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry105628] This does seem to be a pervasive atmosphere on that forum, and all editors here must be careful to set aside such prejudices and poisoning of the well in order to contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner.
In conclusion, there have been faults all round, and we should all endeavour to achieve higher standards of behaviour. Doubtless there will be occasional lapses which should be treated in a way that defuses tensions rather than building up drama, but these principles should be followed –
- Editors should avoid labelling other editors, and take care to be civil in a way that avoids harassment.
- Editors must set aside any prejudices or or preconceptions about other editors, disregarding any allegations about "group behaviour", and take full responsibility themselves for carefully considering each case on its merits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dave_souza, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave_souza 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see an impartial observer (Random832 comes to mind) do a comparative analysis of the probity of evidence provided by Cla68 in support of his (Cla68's) theses to the probity of http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/f/e/l/User_talk~FeloniousMonk_Arbcom_evidence_4828.html in support of his (FM's) theses, and then compare both of those to the probity of http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/New.Evidence.html.
Posted by: Moulton
Title: Screw Barry Thrill
Artist: Gastrin Bombesin
Lyrics: Fats Domino, Milton Roe, and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: http://midi.land63.com/jazz-classic/luis_armstrong/bluberry_louis_armstrong.mid (Fats Domino / Louis Armstrong)
I http://www.google.com/search?sq=Filll+Bob+Stevens
On Screw Barry Thrill
On Screw Barry Thrill
When I http://www.loveaccess.com/personals/filll
The moon stood still
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton
And lingered until
My http://www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu/archive/may2007/083107_wikipedia.html
The wind in the willow played
Love's sweet melody
But all of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filll/Moultonunblock
Were never to be
Though we're apart
You're part of me still
For you were a pill
On Screw Barry Thrill
The wind in the willow played
Love's sweet melody
But all of those vows you made
Were never to be
Though we're apart
You're part of me still
For you were a pill
On Screw Barry Thrill