Odd Nature has been personally attacked! Options Rating

[LaraLove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...#User:Dragon695

Of course, Orangemarlin and Filll show up to defend. And Kelly arrives to take Dragon695's side. It's just the same faces everywhere. I would chime in, but it's just not worth it. Filll can misuse any link to attempt to paint the picture he wants, but I'm not sure there's much defense for

Ah! I see Odd Nature has shown up to solicit a round from the ID boo-hoo brigade, well I stand by my statement. You and the rest of those WP:TE members of the ID Cabal will either change your attitude or face the music, so don't think the whole OrangeClownFish affair gets you off the hook. My comments pale in comparison to how rude, loutish, and completely out of control some of the things you guys do to newbies and unrelated editors who show up at pages your "Wikiproject" WP:OWNs. The so-called scientists who claim to defend science are actually hurting those of us who really care about science. Real scientists are gentlemen and scholars, not oafs and louts. If anyone wants diffs, the Intelligent Design RFC is chock full of them. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Although, Filll and Orangemarlin are really the last people who should be chiming in dismayed at incivility. And I don't think they caught the Finding Nemo reference.

[Moulton]

Odd nature sez...

Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Accusing anyone of being tendentious is a personal attack which violates WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. Accusing anyone of being part of a tendentious cabal compounds the insult. Look at my comment Dragon695 attacked me for. Really, sort of incivility needs to stop. Odd nature (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the RfC which Filll and his allies lodged against me last September. Here is just one of three places where they label me "tendentious"...

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Moulton was repeatedly counselled to calm down and not engage in edit warring and tendentious editing.

And of course, it was Filll, Dave Souza, and FeloniousMonk (among others) who certified that section and OrangeMarlin and Odd nature (among others) who endorsed it.

Is Odd nature now admitting that the RfC the ID Cabal filed against me last September was uncivil?

[Sxeptomaniac]

Odd nature sez...

Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Accusing anyone of being tendentious is a personal attack which violates WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. Accusing anyone of being part of a tendentious cabal compounds the insult. Look at my comment Dragon695 attacked me for. Really, sort of incivility needs to stop. Odd nature (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the RfC which Filll and his allies lodged against me last September. Here is just one of three places where they label me "tendentious"...

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Moulton was repeatedly counselled to calm down and not engage in edit warring and tendentious editing.

And of course, it was Filll, Dave Souza, and FeloniousMonk (among others) who certified that section and OrangeMarlin and Odd nature (among others) who endorsed it.

Is Odd nature now admitting that the RfC the ID Cabal filed against me last September was uncivil?

Of course not. You should know enough about those editors by now to realize that their definition of "personal attack" only works in one direction.

[prospero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...#User:Dragon695

Of course, Orangemarlin and Filll show up to defend. And Kelly arrives to take Dragon695's side. It's just the same faces everywhere. I would chime in, but it's just not worth it. Filll can misuse any link to attempt to paint the picture he wants, but I'm not sure there's much defense for

Ah! I see Odd Nature has shown up to solicit a round from the ID boo-hoo brigade, well I stand by my statement. You and the rest of those WP:TE members of the ID Cabal will either change your attitude or face the music, so don't think the whole OrangeClownFish affair gets you off the hook. My comments pale in comparison to how rude, loutish, and completely out of control some of the things you guys do to newbies and unrelated editors who show up at pages your "Wikiproject" WP:OWNs. The so-called scientists who claim to defend science are actually hurting those of us who really care about science. Real scientists are gentlemen and scholars, not oafs and louts. If anyone wants diffs, the Intelligent Design RFC is chock full of them. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Although, Filll and Orangemarlin are really the last people who should be chiming in dismayed at incivility. And I don't think they caught the Finding Nemo reference.

Yes, sorry about that, but I guess the "outrage" over OrangeClownFish's situation versus the non-outrage over Moulton's situation just got to me.

P.S. - Thanks LauraLove for that wonderful reference. I still get a chuckle every time I see OM's username and then think of that photo you posted. I know, that's terrible of me, but I can't help it, it's funny!

This post has been edited by prospero: Wed 2nd July 2008, 8:48pm

[Rootology]

...is it me or is it getting to the point with some people that any negative observation is a personal attack? Calling someone "tendentious" is an attack now? At this rate warning someone to back down because they're approaching 3RR will be a personal attack by Christmas.

[Moulton]

I guess the "outrage" over OrangeClownFish's situation versus the non-outrage over Moulton's situation just got to me.

Given that the ID Cabal demonstrated the very practice they now take exception to, it seems to me they might not have carefully thought it through.

[Bob Boy]

I'm sorry, but I find this whole thing unintentionally hilarious. In order to combat assertions that there is an ID Cabal, Odd nature makes a Wikiquette complaint that "there is no cabal". Then the other members of the "cabal" mysteriously show up in the same thread to engage in exactly the behavior that prompted the original cabal-accusation "attack".

It's as if they're blind to their own behavior, and their opponents are using a sort of Wikipedia aikido against them by provoking even more of the cabal-like behavior.

[Kelly Martin]

...is it me or is it getting to the point with some people that any negative observation is a personal attack? Calling someone "tendentious" is an attack now?

It's been this way for quite some time. The only times one can say anything even remotely critical of another editor is when that editor is up for RfA or has already been put in the stocks at RfC or RfAr. Otherwise, any comment other than fully glowing is a heinous personal attack.

[prospero]

I'm sorry, but I find this whole thing unintentionally hilarious. In order to combat assertions that there is an ID Cabal, Odd nature makes a Wikiquette complaint that "there is no cabal". Then the other members of the "cabal" mysteriously show up in the same thread to engage in exactly the behavior that prompted the original cabal-accusation "attack".

It's as if they're blind to their own behavior, and their opponents are using a sort of Wikipedia aikido against them by provoking even more of the cabal-like behavior.

Not surprisingly, I do too! Although, Lar is probably right to scold me for some of my rather uncivilized remarks.

This post has been edited by prospero: Wed 2nd July 2008, 8:55pm

[Ben]

I'm sorry, but I find this whole thing unintentionally hilarious. In order to combat assertions that there is an ID Cabal, Odd nature makes a Wikiquette complaint that "there is no cabal". Then the other members of the "cabal" mysteriously show up in the same thread to engage in exactly the behavior that prompted the original cabal-accusation "attack".

It's as if they're blind to their own behavior, and their opponents are using a sort of Wikipedia aikido against them by provoking even more of the cabal-like behavior.

Seeing as Dragon695 used the name "OrangeClownfish," which appeared in a recent WR thread, he's probably one of the more flamboyant and drama-laden WR residents looking for a bit of sockpuppet action.

[Cobalt]

I resent these personal attacks from Dragon695, and request an immediate retraction and apology. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone wants retractions and an apology. But if this person got it, would it be sincere?

[prospero]

I'm sorry, but I find this whole thing unintentionally hilarious. In order to combat assertions that there is an ID Cabal, Odd nature makes a Wikiquette complaint that "there is no cabal". Then the other members of the "cabal" mysteriously show up in the same thread to engage in exactly the behavior that prompted the original cabal-accusation "attack".

It's as if they're blind to their own behavior, and their opponents are using a sort of Wikipedia aikido against them by provoking even more of the cabal-like behavior.

Seeing as Dragon695 used the name "OrangeClownfish," which appeared in a recent WR thread, he's probably one of the more flamboyant and drama-laden WR residents looking for a bit of sockpuppet action.

I thought it was funny and yes that is from the OM thread where LauraLove posted the Finding Nemo fish picture. Nothing wrong with nicknames.

I resent these personal attacks from Dragon695, and request an immediate retraction and apology. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone wants retractions and an apology. But if this person got it, would it be sincere?

No, it wouldn't. I have no intention of "apologizing" for calling him OrangeClownFish, either.

This post has been edited by prospero: Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:32pm

[Moulton]

Here is Odd nature last October, weighing in with the rest of the WikiClique on ID when Durova floated the possibility of unblocking a particularly reprehensible reprobate...

Possible unblock of Moulton

I'm strongly opposed to un-banning Moulton. Not only is he a colossal time-waster pushing his personal POV on articles and their talk pages, he's been waging an anti-Wikipedia campagain at his blogs, and is outing the IPs of anyone who mentions his ban at Wikipedia. Not to mention his joining forces with Larry Fafarman, another banned anti-Wikipedia nutter, at his blog. Is this the sort of editor Wikipedia needs? No. A million times, no. Odd nature 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature's reference to my blogs is amusing. Here he is, as Blogger Skip, giving me some grief at Moulton Lava...

Blogger Skip said...

It comes as no surprise that for all his blathering about his own notions of standards while ignoring Wikipedia's, all Moulton accomplished was to be hoisted by his own petard. Moulton has been banned from Wikipedia.
5:13 PM

Blogger Moulton said...

Skip, I'd like to quote you on that.

May I attribute that quote to you and identify it as coming from an individual at Macy's San Francisco Operations Center, posting from IP 64.237.4.140 [smtp.macys.com]?
6:10 AM

Blogger Skip said...

"May I attribute that quote to you and identify it..."

No, you may not. Please remove this information immediately, it is private information.
5:58 PM

Blogger Moulton said...

You're way too late, Skip.

Google has already cached it, and the Library of Congress has already permanently recorded it for posterity in Minerva.
3:32 AM

And here is what Odd nature is referring to at Larry Fafarman's blog.

Blogger Moulton said...

Variety?

You want a variety show here?

Well, OK.

Here's my contribution to this musical comedy...

This number goes out to our very own Skip.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:20:00 PM

[powercorrupts]

I'm sorry, but I find this whole thing unintentionally hilarious. In order to combat assertions that there is an ID Cabal, Odd nature makes a Wikiquette complaint that "there is no cabal". Then the other members of the "cabal" mysteriously show up in the same thread to engage in exactly the behavior that prompted the original cabal-accusation "attack".

It's as if they're blind to their own behavior, and their opponents are using a sort of Wikipedia aikido against them by provoking even more of the cabal-like behavior.

Seeing as Dragon695 used the name "OrangeClownfish," which appeared in a recent WR thread, he's probably one of the more flamboyant and drama-laden WR residents looking for a bit of sockpuppet action.

I thought it was funny and yes that is from the OM thread where LauraLove posted the Finding Nemo fish picture. Nothing wrong with nicknames.

I resent these personal attacks from Dragon695, and request an immediate retraction and apology. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone wants retractions and an apology. But if this person got it, would it be sincere?

No, it wouldn't. I have no intention of "apologizing" for calling him OrangeClownFish, either.

Someone should compile all the Talk pages spats he got 'tied of' and entirely deleted. He probably owes hundreds of apologies. I suppose now he is mentored he cannot be too rude - but when it comes to all the underhand ways to bully and game, he has basically now been given a free reign, imo. Providing he can keep his potty mouth shut, he is harder to take to task now than before, I reckon. In a way, the prejudice of the trial wrote all his past crimes off in one fell swoop. They (the 'cruft' cabal) would no-doubt plead 'double indemnity' if anyone called on them since his "Statement" was accepted.

[Bob Boy]

I'm sorry, but I find this whole thing unintentionally hilarious. In order to combat assertions that there is an ID Cabal, Odd nature makes a Wikiquette complaint that "there is no cabal". Then the other members of the "cabal" mysteriously show up in the same thread to engage in exactly the behavior that prompted the original cabal-accusation "attack".

It's as if they're blind to their own behavior, and their opponents are using a sort of Wikipedia aikido against them by provoking even more of the cabal-like behavior.

Not surprisingly, I do too! Although, Lar is probably right to scold me for some of my rather uncivilized remarks.

Yeah, you can be a lot more effective by remaining more civilized than they are. By the way, I see Jim62sch just could not resist the temptation to reinforce the Cabal thing by showing up on your talk page. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[SomeRandomAdmin]

I always assume that Odd Nature = FeloniousMonk anyway. Am I wrong?

[Giggy]

I always assume that Odd Nature = FeloniousMonk anyway. Am I wrong?

Yeah, you're wrong. (Not a personal attack.)

But seriously, I think we all (tried to) agree at (one of) the RfC that describing folks as a "cabal" is mean. Putting aside one's opinions as to if they actually are a cabal, I think the best advice for both sides is to not give the other side any opportunity (prospero/Dragon; this is aimed at you, mostly... make of it what you will).

[Bob Boy]

I always assume that Odd Nature = FeloniousMonk anyway. Am I wrong?

Yeah, you're wrong. (Not a personal attack.)

But seriously, I think we all (tried to) agree at (one of) the RfC that describing folks as a "cabal" is mean. Putting aside one's opinions as to if they actually are a cabal, I think the best advice for both sides is to not give the other side any opportunity (prospero/Dragon; this is aimed at you, mostly... make of it what you will).

Giggy, I understand where you're coming from - and agree, to an extent. But when a group insists they are not a cabal, and then acts exactly like a cabal minutes later, that's pretty damning. What would be an alternative term to describe this?

This post has been edited by Bob Boy: Fri 4th July 2008, 12:50am

[Giggy]

Just don't describe them. Let Odd nature's pathetically weak WQA report self-destruct. Same here - remove the "and the rest of the WP:TE ID cabal" and there's nothing wrong with the comment.

This post has been edited by Giggy: Fri 4th July 2008, 12:53am

[prospero]

I always assume that Odd Nature = FeloniousMonk anyway. Am I wrong?

Yeah, you're wrong. (Not a personal attack.)

But seriously, I think we all (tried to) agree at (one of) the RfC that describing folks as a "cabal" is mean. Putting aside one's opinions as to if they actually are a cabal, I think the best advice for both sides is to not give the other side any opportunity (prospero/Dragon; this is aimed at you, mostly... make of it what you will).

It has little to do with being mean, although my calling OM OrangeClownFish probably was. The fact of the matter was that my use of the term was clearly demonstrated by the further pile on by ID editors both on my talk page and at WQA. If they don't want to be called a cabal, they shouldn't act as one. Still, I will try to ratchet down on my use of the term to only egregious cases.

I still stand by my fundamental beliefs. Maybe I'm unique, but never have I seen such a disruptive, rude, loutish bunch of scientists in my life. Yes, I've been around plenty, since my father would take me to the various international developmental biology meetings he attended when I was younger. The class of the persons I met there was on a whole different level then what I see with those associated with Wikiproject ID.

This post has been edited by prospero: Fri 4th July 2008, 12:59am