User talk:Sid/Archive2

WP/COI

Sid, trolling the WP COI Noticeboard is not the way to go about it. Read that page, it is for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors [1] and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism..."

It's not for content discussions. Wanna go back in the CP talk/Archives three years to the first entries there? GD, let's do it, then. But there's an appropriate place for that. And WP Dispute Resolution strongly encourages editors resolve disputes among themselves, and off wiki preferably. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you start such a section by making wrong or misleading claims, I will correct them. You started the COI section by claiming as fact the very thing my edit had corrected: "Editor did not declare COI before altering content about Rationalwiki's founder, Peter Lipson." You also claimed that I had not made my COI clear, which I had (by mentioning it on the CP and RW talk pages before your inquiry). Later you claimed that a neutral admin had inserted a NPOV template even though that wasn't the case (though that was likely more due to confusion - it was hard to keep track of what people did and said what in the "heat of the battle").

You made your case, I made mine. If you want to complain about how I did so, do so on Wikipedia. If you want to discuss Wikipedia content with me, do so on Wikipedia. If you want to accuse me of something, do so on Wikipedia. I'm willing to be judged for my actions, but if you think I'll just let you present your completely one-sided view unchallenged, you're wrong.

*sigh* Look, Rob. I've quite honestly better things to do than playing wiki-tag with you. And I'm sure you do, too.

Here, lemme help you by lining out some of the problems you will have to face if you want to pin blame on us beyond what the article currently says:

1. You don't have Reliable Sources. That's a big one and pretty much a dealbreaker.
2. RW isn't the sole enemy of CP. Several vandals and parodists come from the outside. For example the blog rush three years ago or more recently, the coverage through the Colbert Report. Plus vandal waves claiming to be from Ebaumsworld or something? The Colbert thing alone will break your neck when arguing that RW is responsible for all your issues. You might notice that we're not the ones openly calling upon millions of people to blatantly vandalize CP.
3. While vandals or parodists inserted some silly stuff, it's not like CP has much hope of being taken seriously on its own:
   • Things like "Counterexamples to Relativity" (a.k.a. "Jesus' telehealing disproves relativity!"), Counterexamples to Evolution (a.k.a. "The beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution!"), or many of the "Liberal [noun]" (a.k.a. "Everything bad is liberal and everything liberals do is bad!") articles invite ridicule and make Conservapedia look foolish. These things were created by Andy or other sysops.
   • The same goes for Barack "Magic Mindcontrol Muslim" Obama, which had been criticized by several sysops in private and which had caused DanH to leave. All just because Andy has the power to override consensus when it pleases him. See also: Richard "Not a Professor even when Oxford University says so" Dawkins.
   • Also goes for the Conservative Bible Project, which Andy defended on national television (if I remember the Colbert clip correctly).
4. Regarding the Lenski Affair: Andy wanted to send the letter, overriding vocal opposition by several sysops. So he asked for support from other editors (an early example of the Best Of The Public?). And when several users signed up out of the blue to do so, he embraced them even while the other sysops told him that these were transparent socks. At the same time, socks arguing against him were shown the door, IIRC. The sysops even went as far as using RW's endorsement as an argument to not send the letter. But Andy refused to listen to his trusted sysops and instead let total strangers pat his back. Complicating things further is the fact that at least one vocal supporter of Andy who made bad comments about the authors was not from RW (LarryFarma, an open Holocaust "revisionist" who actually got edit rights within days even though ALL of his contribs were on the Lenski talk page)

If it makes you happy, we share your basic problem in a weird way: We would love to include some of the more hilarious Andy Insights in the Wikipedia article, but we don't have Reliable Sources for them.

I consider this issue to be over. The CP (talk) page won't go anywhere anytime soon due to lack of new sources and the RW article will likely become a non-issue (deletion or redirect) due to lack of any sources. So unless you want to drag me into anything, I'll likely stay out of things unless absolutely necessary. That okay with you? --Sid (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Sid, let's make this a start. Ever been through WP/Aribitration? Not pretty. And trust me, they will have no patience for large blocks of text like the one you just stated to defend yourself against claims of "tendentious editing." And tendentious editing covers longtime behavior. Let's sample CP's Archive, Archive 1, first subhead ==Balance==,

[2] a poster says, "I see several people on talk are concerned about finding positive references to balance all of the negative. While concern with balance is good and important, it would be improper to seek to manufacture balance where none exists. My understanding is that ...." bla bla bla. While those are not your words, you were right there from the beginning in shaping the article (and from the context, there must have been things on talk oversighted back then). Do you think that content might have influenced peoples impressions of CP over the years?

Here's what I propose, we can work together in WP on the CP article, and the RW article if it survives, or we can at some point move to wp:WP:DR. But working together begins with recognizing I have valid concerns. And those concerns basically are for the Wikipedia project. Your contribs at wp:CP hurt the WP project. I'll prove it to Arbcom, if necessary.

Whaddaya say, Sid, we gonna hurt each other, or help each other? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: As I see it, we're at this wp:Wikipedia:DR#Discuss_with_the_other_party of the process already. If you need help as each successive step fails, I'd be glad to help navigate your way through. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your concern seems to be your claim that the LA Times claims that PalMD founded RationalWiki, is that correct? This is at least what I gathered from your most recent post to the COI Noticeboard and RW talk page.

I recognize that the LA Times article could be worded better, and it's been shown that it's apparently possible to read it in a way that implies that PalMD founded RationalWiki - hence the Register article and the initial version of the restored RW article.

However, I reject that the LA Times article says PalMD is the founder of RationalWiki. It doesn't. It says (God, by now, I could recite this in my sleep):

"After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia."

"Several other editors" includes me. Does the LA Times article thus say that I'm the founder of RW? No, it doesn't. PalMD is just the only one of the initial group who is named in the article, but it doesn't say that he had a special role.

People can obviously jump to different conclusions after reading this article, and that's unfortunate. But that doesn't mean we should discard it. It means that we have to read it carefully and see if other sources contradict it.

• The Register merely paraphrases the LA Times. It likely didn't do its own direct research in the way Simon did (she interviewed at least two CP sysops and also communicated with one or more RationalWiki members, if I recall correctly). So where it goes beyond the claims of the original article and starts to paraphrase, I won't give it more weight than the LA Times article.
• PalMD himself states on his user page that the Register is wrong.
• Our own history page states that ColinR founded the original RW.
• I don't recall us denying that PalMD was among the first members. Considering that Simon knew of his medical qualifications and of his discussions with Andy about abortion/breastcancer, I would guess that he contacted when she appeared on CP to announce her article-writing intentions.

From my understanding, our statements thus don't contradict what the LA Times says: "Lipson and several other editors [...] started their own website". He was there in the beginning, and we were among the initial members to start it together.

At this moment, PalMD's statement, RationalWiki's history page, the LA Times and the Wikipedia CP article agree: "Several editors, including Lipson, started another website". There is no mention of a founder in the WP articles because the one source that mentions a founder at all is the Register, which drew its own conclusions from the LA Times article that go against what the person and the site in question claim.

Did this help in some way? Did I understand your concerns correctly? If you want to discuss this issue somewhere on Wikipedia, drop me a note and I'll copy this comment over. If your concerns are about something else, please tell me and I'll give you my thoughts as time permits. It's just hard to keep track of everybody's latest developments since the discussion is now spread over four(!) talk pages. --Sid (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As a note, my activity level will decrease considerably the next few days/weeks as noted on my user page. --Sid (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit break

"WP Dispute Resolution strongly encourages editors resolve disputes among themselves, and off wiki preferably." Like hell it does. As per wp:WP:OFFWIKI, "using external forums to make decisions about Wikipedia content is frowned upon". Nice try Nobs, but this discussion should be on the talk page at WP, where all interested parties can see it & participate. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

CONTENT. CONTENT. CONTENT. Look at wp:Wikihounding#Wikihounding,

• Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor....

The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

wp:Wikihounding#Off-wiki_harassment says,

Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases...As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. ^{— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs} 22:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're starting to make Ken

look lucid, man. --Kels (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's for wp:WP:RFAC to decide. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Speed kills, man. --Kels (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you cite all these policies against your own actions, Rob. So why are you Wikihounding Sid here about Wikipedia content issues? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Rob posted that? As I read I thought it was someone making a case against his bizarre behavior lately. ħuman 01:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I had to reread it several times, & still can't see where he's going with it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it's bizarre. Has he been drinking antifreeze or something? --Kels (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It least he left a few words unbolded. I suspect the only reason everything is spelled right is because he copied it. Šţěŗĭļė dwarf 13:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

[I moved a few replies to avoid them suddenly being orphaned out of context as the discussion below goes on. Rob is replying to Weaseloid's 01:24, 28 March post. --Sid (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)]

It's going here wp:Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Formal_mediation; if and when that fails it goes here wp:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. See a case being litigated now along similiar lines.wp:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#COI_edits_in_respect_of_living_individuals. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You have read wp:Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection and wp:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Alternatives, no? With the exception of the format issue, I suspect you will violate all of them in the mediation article. From what I've seen of mediation and arbitration at WP, your requests will be rejected, especially if framed in terms of conflict of interest. (You should also be aware that the global warming issues have always been contentious on WP; that "case" you cite is far more advanced than one paragraph about RW.) Šţěŗĭļė dwarf 15:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, if you wish to drag this to ArbCom or yet another formal board, I will ask you at what point you tried to discuss content with me:

• I asked you to discuss content on the CP talk page and so far, you didn't react.
• I asked you to discuss content on the RW talk page and you insisted on reverting my changes to the article first because you still can't accept the decision by the COI Noticeboard you requested. In fact, you said that you'd only start the discussion on Talk:CP once you got your way.
• Your edits on this page were just to accuse me of trolling and of controlling content and to threaten me with ArbCom unless I agree that your vague and far-reaching "concerns" are valid. I tried to discuss content, but my post about the Lipson/LATimes issue was ignored.
• Your edits on T:WIGO mostly focused on stuff you were told was OR, and your reply was to bring up ArbCom while still claiming that you're trying to engage in dispute resolution. Plus some more accusations of trolling and threats to drag me to the Sockpuppet Noticeboard.

If you truly wish to settle a dispute, post your content concerns on wp:Talk:Conservapedia and stop mindlessly threatening us with wiki-courts. --Sid (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now...

Sid, you stated on tmt's talk page, "... I have better things to do than to get dragged from Noticeboard to Mediation to ArbCom to whatever just because you're more interested in dissecting rules than simply discussing one issue at a time". Reviewing the facts, this didn't happen. Rather, a classic Usenet flamewar erupted over several pages. The same single issue, interpretation of the LA Times (which consensus says even the Register got wrong) was debated on two pages, simultaneously, with different groups of editors. And it was a basic violation of WP:5P, namely WP:CIVIL, the way I was treated.

My dispute is not with WP Admins doing thier job, although they can and probably will be called upon to make statements about what they observed in Arbcom. My suggestion is, editors not familiar with the fundemental underlying disputes between CP & RW stay clear of these discussions, on wiki & off. You, tmt, and human may be of some use advising them on thier editing conduct if they have WP accounts and continue to engage in such naked hostility and incivility.

In the long run, I think cooler heads will prevail. I'm sorry to hear about failed attempts in the past with other CP sysops. But you well know I've had little to do with article discussions outside my specialized field.

So, I'm willing to delve into YEC, Lenski, etc. to see what some of the problems are there. It is unfortunate you've had such a big hand in molding WP's entry on these subjects, that only complicates things. Although it's a failed policy proposal, WP:BADSITES defines an Attack site as, websites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors. Harassment of those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter. It discourages participation, and may put people in danger. Some of these proposals have been incorporated in other WP's policies and you will find great support in the wider WP community for some of these provisions.

So let's get specific: Lipson, a co-founder of RW, authored an essay entitled, Conservapedia and Fascism; this may "discourage participation, and may put people in danger," and may constitute "Harassment of those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter." I'm not saying Arbcom would produce findings on this, but there are plenty of editors in the Wikipedia Community who will give a sympathetic ear to good faith editors who have suffered this sort of harassment. You want to litigate all this before Arbcom? And I'm only citing one simple example from a RW co-founder whose encouraged dozens of other editors to think they are justified to engage in the most outrageous editing practices.

So indeed, we may have much to discuss. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, Sid, the (k)nob just got himself blocked for a couple of days for continued harassment. So I dunno if I'd bother responding to this. Clearly it's not RW business, just a bunch of smears and thinly veiled threats. --Kels (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here or at WP? because if he wasn't here, I'd block him for a few days for the above rant. ħuman 05:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob, cease your trolling. If you want to discuss anything, do so on Wikipedia. RationalWiki and my talk page were not meant to discuss Wikipedia content or policy issues. --Sid (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

P-Foster gave him a 48 hour block here, so you pretty much got your wish, Human. Didn't beat me to it by much, mind. I expect he won't post anything like this at WP since then the admins would probably find his harassment actionable, whereas over here he can be a bit under their radar. Or at least he seems to think so. --Kels (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)