User talk:Sid

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 20:20, 25 March 2010 by Weaseloid (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search


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. RobSmithdon'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? RobSmithdon'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. RobSmithdon'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, 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)

"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. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)