Wikipedia talk:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


[edit] ID related chat

  • Intelligent Design subject area: why is the editor conduct so poor? What has been done to tackle the issues there, and what can we (the community, rather than the arbcom) do? Off-site influences on the editing atmosphere's heat: how do we counter that? Anthøny 16:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as you are not likely to get anyone from the intelligent design subject area to show up, and your entire premise is probably faulty, I think this is maybe not the best choice for a topic. But feel free to suggest it. By the way, do you have some examples of bad editor conduct? --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably not the best place for a debate, but of course there are examples of poor conduct! Incidentally, my entire premise is not faulty, so I beg to differ on that point, although I do respect your stance on the matter. Anthøny 10:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

<- how about the opportunity for a platform for Filll to offer his perspective on such issues? - it's clearly all become very heated, and it's sad to see tension between editors - maybe it could be talked out somehow? (and out of interest - I edited a bit at the ID article back in the day, and crossed paths with quite a lot of the editors still active in the area - I found it enjoyable and I learned alot - perhaps we could ask User:Kenosis along? - someone who has clearly contributed a huge amount, and might have avoided some of the polarity and disquiet?? - thoughts most welcome... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I would like to set the record straight in the WP:NTWW venue, and as much as that would make for a very interesting show guaranteed to bring in listeners, it is probably best that I not present my views in a recorded show at the moment. The reason for this is mainly timing. Remember, there is an Arbcomm case currently going on that I am involved in, an RfAr that is active and I am one of the targets of this RfAr, potentially an RfC against me is being considered and possibly another Arbcomm case against me going to be formulated. Remember, I have also in the last 6 months been closely involved in two other similar Arbcomm cases. And I have been accused of an assortment of other supposedly bad behavior on Wikipedia. So it is quite a bit, frankly, and any presentation of evidence or rebuttals in a recorded forum is probably not helpful at the moment.
I have yet to personally see any evidence of heinous behavior. As I have repeatedly asked, show it to me. There are all kinds of grumblings and rumblings about bad behavior, but I have not seen anything particularly inappropriate.
Sure one or two people in a Wikiproject I used to be involved with cursed on-Wiki. Okay, so that is inappropriate, but they were cautioned. I even did some of the cautioning myself. So what? No other editors ever curse on WP?
There is an attempt to apply NPOV and NOR and RS and other WP principles by the members of this Wikiproject. So what? We are not supposed to do that?
Someone who was disruptive (and has been banned from at least 4 other online communities for being disruptive) refuses to agree to edit according to WP principles and is blocked/banned for it. And when this disruptive editor refuses to agree to edit consensually and productively, and the members of the Wikiproject request that the disruptive editor therefore be not allowed to return to edit, or at least return to edit the same articles as before, the Wikiproject is attacked for being unfair. Why? What did they do wrong? If this Wikiproject is so unfair, why have at least three other WP editors who previously advocated for his return, also advised against letting this disruptive editor return to editing at the moment?
I could just as easily reject just about every other phoney charge or claim that I have ever heard. With evidence to back it up. They are just nonsense, repeated mindlessly over and over by people who only vaguely understand the details.
I doubt if you will get Kenosis to participate, but you are welcome to try.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The real issue as not the ID editors, most of whom have been productive and trusted Wikipedia contributors for years, but rather the campaign being run against them by WikipediaReview regulars like Cla68, Sceptre, Moulton, The undertow, etc. at WikipediaReview. Now that's a topic worth discussing.

For example, Sceptre's RFAR on them is not all it appears: Immediately after filling this RFRA Sceptre started a thread at WikipediaReview with the title "Attention ID editors, a Category 3 shitstorm is approaching..." [1] There he gloats "I doubt I'm a vexatious litigant - i'm pretty sure that to be one, you need to have multiple failed attempts. Most of my attempts for RFArs have passed."[2] Note the fact that Moulton is all over Sceptre's thread.

Sceptre's RFAR is simply more WikipediaReview disruption meant to support their own; it, along with Cla68's threat to out ID editors to the press, is just another offshoot of Moulton's multi-site campaign against certain Wikipedia editors. We shouldn't be using NTWW as another channel for Moulton and his merry gang of WikipediaReview supporters to attack Wikipedians in good standing. Just my two cents. Odd nature (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, that would be a far livelier show. And more accurate. --Filll (talk | wpc) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
For some sense of the word accurate in the Colbert sense? For someone who offers the Assume Good Faith challenge, Filll, this is some of the most hypocritical stuff I've ever seen. SirFozzie (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
By these gratuitous personal attacks, you really discredit yourself. Please try to control yourself. You can go and vent your venom someplace else, thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


shall we do it, then? - I'll drop a note at your pages, and hope you might be tempted to sign up below! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If you do it, I hope it will be more evenhanded than the highly one-sided presentation above, which propagates the meme of the "evil WR crowd" that's popular in certain circles here. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the biases on both sides, I think that it is unlikely that anyone who is a strong supporter of WR or anyone who is doubtful about the positive virtues of WR will ever view any show about WR to be "evenhanded". Given that many of those who are WR supporters will excuse any bad behavior by their fellow WR editors, any discussion that does not praise WR to the sky and state that every single editor at WR is just misunderstood but really on the side of truth and justice will be rejected as biased by WR supporters. If some want to blindly believe that anyone at WR could never ever do any wrong under any circumstances and dismiss any reports or examples of questionable behavior, then they are allowed to take that position. But to demand that all others must be forced to take this same position is asking a bit much, frankly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that many of those who are WR opponents will excuse any bad behavior by their fellow BADSITE-bashers, any discussion that does not call WR a wretched hive of scum and villainy with no redeeming value whatsoever and state that every single person who posts to WR is a horrible stalker, harasser, or dangerous vandal will be rejected as biased by WR opponents. If some want to blindly believe that nobody at WR could never ever have a valid point under any circumstances and dismiss any reports or examples of them being right about anything, then they are allowed to take that position. But to demand that all others must be forced to take this same position is asking a bit much, frankly. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me I do not think that sort of dialogue is helpful. I have not excused any bad behavior of Odd nature, who has made a negative comment about Wikipedia Review. Who else that is in the ID Wikiproject has made a negative comment about Wikipedia Review? Perhaps I should generate an essay with my position about Wikipedia Review, which I have not made clear before this. I also disagree with those in the ID Wikiproject on certain issues, and I have made note of this before, but perhaps since I am being accused of all sorts of villainy I will have to make a more complete study of this, since this is the equivalent of some sort of Inquisition tilting at windmills and chasing fictional cabals. Your defensiveness about BADSITES, which was a discussion I did not even participate in and might have been before my time or certainly was not aware of, just really strikes me as a bit over the top. What is it to you if some people dislike Wikipedia Review ? Who cares? Some people dislike the color orange or Ford cars too. So what? I have never claimed that no one on Wikipedia Review ever has a valid point. I do not know anyone who has ever claimed such a thing. Do you have any examples of anyone who has made such a claim?
Maybe in light of your venom filled-post, everyone else should basically bugger off and let you have the microphone to yourself for an hour or two every week so you can sing the praises of your beloved Wikipedia Review. Sounds like a great idea for a show. Make it a regular show. I am sure you will get a lot of listeners.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Funny how my "venom filled post" was one that was intentionally worded in a manner that precisely parallels yours. Try looking in a mirror sometime. If people were torpedoing RFAs based on the subject thinking that the color orange or Ford cars might be a "mixed bag" of good and bad rather than entirely evil, and were vigorously supporting attempts to make it Wikipedia policy that nothing that is the color orange or that depicts Ford cars, or links to any place that is orange or about Fords, is to be permitted on Wikipedia under any circumstances, then I'd be strongly opposed to them too. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)



<undent>Well Dan, I think we have some confusion here.

  • "Precisely parallels" huh? Did I use the words and phrases "basher", "scum", "wretched", "hive", "villainy", "no redeeming value whatsoever", "stalker", "harasser", "dangerous vandal", "horrible"? Somehow I seem to have missed those in my post. They are pretty emotionally charged words. Perhaps you could point out to me where I used those words, or similarly emotionally charged words?
  • I also think it is funny after that performance you implied that you took umbrage at me calling it a "venom filled post". Wow. All I can say is wow.
  • Also, you seem to be extremely upset about the results of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 which was well over a year ago. Could you point out to me how I helped with the torpedoing of that RfA? I notice two members of the ID Wikiproject voting "oppose", in addition to Riana, who frequents WR, does she not? So how could the failure of Cla68 to be appointed an admin over a year ago have anything to do with me, or the ID Wikiproject, or BADSITES or WR or anything else? I was not even aware of Cla68 at that time, so I am amazed you want to blame it on me somehow.
  • Similarly, I do not see my name appearing at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes. How can this be my fault? I see 5 of the 20 or so ID Wikiproject members voting "oppose", but I also see Krimpet, who is another WR regular, voting oppose as well. Hmmm...
  • I think your constant ranting about BADSITES policy starts to approach the pathological. Here is a message for you: I had nothing to do with the BADSITES policy. I do not even know what the BADSITES policy is, or was. I only wonder about the possibility that some websites might plant malicious code on people's machines (as I have explained to you before). And concerned with threats and criminal activity of various kinds. For example, I would not suggest anyone go to a website which is involved in the trading of child pornography. Or planning terrorist attacks.

I am stunned at your harping on this BADSITES thing over and over and over and over and over. With this level of agitation and anger and nonsense, it really makes me start to wonder. What is it to you? Who cares? Is this worth it? What on earth?

If you want to convince people of your position (which I gather is that the BADSITES policy was a bad policy and it made you really angry and still makes you really really angry somehow), I would humbly suggest you are going about it in exactly the worst possible way.

By the way, I think that it would still be great for you to have your own solo weekly show where you ranted about the BADSITES policy for an hour or so. And talked about how wonderful Wikipedia Review is. Well you might get a few listeners for a week or two anyway.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    • My apologies. I do have a pretty big "sore spot" about that issue, and an enormous "hot button" which may sometimes get triggered at inopportune times. I have issues of disagreement with you, but I was out of line to imply that you had anything to do with events of which I disapprove in which you had no actual involvement. Perhaps I just got up on the wrong side of the bed. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


I accept your apology. But I get awfully tired of attacks for things I had nothing to do with, frankly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Although NTWW is a good place for lively discussion, and sometimes serves as a place where people find common ground, I don't think it's appropriate to pressure anyone to join a recorded episode. If the participants here would like to mediate via non-recorded voice chat, I really would like to help find common ground. Sometimes nuance comes across better in voice than in chat. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Durova, I'd support you if you redacted this entire section. DGG (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Having now observed what "mediation" means in this context, I think I will have to decline. I have had a taste of this "mediation" and it basically amounts to the other party producing a litany of reasons why I and others that I have edited articles with are the scum of the earth. I am not allowed to question these reasons, or in fact ask any questions at all. I am not allowed to make any comments of my own, aside from just agreeing that I and those I have edited with are villainous and heinous editors, deserving of the worst possible treatment. Somehow, that does not strike me as an appropriate or fruitful approach to mediation, and I would suggest that all who think this is a productive avenue to disabuse yourselves of this misconception. Thank you.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

that sounds frankly surreal! - mediation can be great if everyone's open minded and up for it, and if you're not up for chatting in this project, then I totally understand.... best wishes, and good luck in resolving these thorny issues somehow.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)