I'm trying hard to keep an open mind, but based on the information I currently have in front of me, it seems like I'm looking at the an extreme instance of admin abuse.
As many know, PrivateMusings is a sock account created in good faith by a reputable, good-faith user (of 2+ years editing). The PrivateMusings account was created in order to deal with the BADSITES subject-- fearing that people who disagreed with his stance might try to seek some sort of retribution.
This use of socks is totally appropriate-- our socks policy explicitly describes socks of this sort as legitimate: "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."
Private Musings was always completely open about his being a sock-- he revealed his identity several trusted admins, and he has always been a polite, thoughtful, and helpful contributor. No one has alleged that he has ever used this account to appear as if multiple people are making edits. During the Arbcom case, and in multiple discussions one several pages, Private Musing was instrumental in helping the community work out some of the post-BADSITES issues. Private Musings is a good guy, and a better man than I am.
-----
There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances. Regretably, some of the individuals who demanded a total ban on any and all links to BADSITES have opposed this growing consensus, and at least one of them has decided he's willing to play dirty to try to get his way.
One of the most vocal proponents of Badsites was JzG/Guy. As we all know, he's a strong proponent of a total ban on 'badsites'. When the Arbcom case failed to enact BADSITES as policy, Guy posted a 2300 word "request for clarification', basically insisting that they make it policy.
Guy has been a central fixture of the BADSITES dispute, and has supported it at every turn-- both at [[WP:BADSITES]], [[WP:NPA]], the Arbcom Case, the request for clarification, and many other cases. He has written thousands upon thousands of words on the subject, purged dozens if not hundreds of links. He is definitely a party to the BADSITES debate. Now, there's nothing wrong with having been pro-BADSITES, it's a fine opinion which was shared by many. My only point in mentioning Guy's extreme involvement in the BADSITES debate is to point out that Guy is most certainly NOT an "uninvolved admin"-- not by any stretch of the imagination.
But nevertheless, Guy has taken it upon himself to indefinitely ban his primary opponent in the Badsites debate, Private Musings.
The precise reason for the block has been hard to gauge. The initial text used during the block log was simply "This has gone on long enough", suggesting the longstanding disagreement between Guy and PM was the source of the block. Another explanation was that PM's comments had been "inflaming a dispute", again suggesting the disagreement between Guy and Pm over BADSITES was the source of the block. In a third comment at aNI, Guy justified characterized the block as being "for edit warring". Finally, Guy argued that PM had reinserted links to "blogs which contain bad information"-- suggesting the block may have been for violating the rejected BADSITES policy. These changing justifications do not inspire confidence.
---------------------- Let's first consider whether PM deserves an indefinite ban:
* His use of a sock puppet account is 100% appropriate and "by the book". He's an icon of the apropriate and responsible use of a sock puppet.
* The evidence for his alleged "edit warring" is extremely slim. A total of four edits, made over the course of three days. The edits were supported by consensus on the talk page. The edits were reverting vandalism-- deletion of a reliable source by a indef-banned vandal who was using an sockpuppet to evade the ban, who had chosen a username specifically designed to harass PM.
* BADSITES is not policy, and we do not indefinitely ban people for inserting EL to an article merely because those EL have a personal dispute with one of our editors.
No matter how you slice it-- this is NOT a a case for an indefinte ban. The ban should be lifted. Even if people really feel PM drifted into 'edit warring'-- he deserves nothing more than a warning from a neutral admin, something he would surely comply with. An indefinitely ban is unwarranted.
-------------------
Now let's consider Guy's case:
* He has indefinitely blocked someone he had been in a heated on-going policy dispute with.
* He has used his admin tools to block a user he was involved in a content dispute with.
* His claim that the indef block is based on sock puppet abuse is invalid and shows either poor judgement or insincerity.
* His claim that the indef block is based on edit warring is highly unwarrented, and shows poor judgement or insincerity.
* His claim that PM's basically violate BADSITES suggests a contempt for the decisions of Arbcom and the community.
---------------
I work hard to AGF-- but it's hard to see Guy's actions as anything but a disruptive bit of drama, banning an editor who was in dispute with him. Perhaps a good explaination will emerge, but barring that event, I strongly feel Guy needs to be desysopped. Granted, I'm biased. I disagree with him over badsites too-- so if he's taking to banning his opponents, I'm probably next in line.
Alec
You may file a request for arbitration if you wish regarding this matter, as may PrivateMusings with respect to his ban.
Fred
I'm trying hard to keep an open mind, but based on the information I currently have in front of me, it seems like I'm looking at the an extreme instance of admin abuse.
As many know, PrivateMusings is a sock account created in good faith by a reputable, good-faith user (of 2+ years editing). The PrivateMusings account was created in order to deal with the BADSITES subject-- fearing that people who disagreed with his stance might try to seek some sort of retribution.
This use of socks is totally appropriate-- our socks policy explicitly describes socks of this sort as legitimate: "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."
Private Musings was always completely open about his being a sock-- he revealed his identity several trusted admins, and he has always been a polite, thoughtful, and helpful contributor. No one has alleged that he has ever used this account to appear as if multiple people are making edits. During the Arbcom case, and in multiple discussions one several pages, Private Musing was instrumental in helping the community work out some of the post-BADSITES issues. Private Musings is a good guy, and a better man than I am.
There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances. Regretably, some of the individuals who demanded a total ban on any and all links to BADSITES have opposed this growing consensus, and at least one of them has decided he's willing to play dirty to try to get his way.
One of the most vocal proponents of Badsites was JzG/Guy. As we all know, he's a strong proponent of a total ban on 'badsites'. When the Arbcom case failed to enact BADSITES as policy, Guy posted a 2300 word "request for clarification', basically insisting that they make it policy.
Guy has been a central fixture of the BADSITES dispute, and has supported it at every turn-- both at [[WP:BADSITES]], [[WP:NPA]], the Arbcom Case, the request for clarification, and many other cases. He has written thousands upon thousands of words on the subject, purged dozens if not hundreds of links. He is definitely a party to the BADSITES debate. Now, there's nothing wrong with having been pro-BADSITES, it's a fine opinion which was shared by many. My only point in mentioning Guy's extreme involvement in the BADSITES debate is to point out that Guy is most certainly NOT an "uninvolved admin"-- not by any stretch of the imagination.
But nevertheless, Guy has taken it upon himself to indefinitely ban his primary opponent in the Badsites debate, Private Musings.
The precise reason for the block has been hard to gauge. The initial text used during the block log was simply "This has gone on long enough", suggesting the longstanding disagreement between Guy and PM was the source of the block. Another explanation was that PM's comments had been "inflaming a dispute", again suggesting the disagreement between Guy and Pm over BADSITES was the source of the block. In a third comment at aNI, Guy justified characterized the block as being "for edit warring". Finally, Guy argued that PM had reinserted links to "blogs which contain bad information"-- suggesting the block may have been for violating the rejected BADSITES policy. These changing justifications do not inspire confidence.
Let's first consider whether PM deserves an indefinite ban:
- His use of a sock puppet account is 100% appropriate and "by the
book". He's an icon of the apropriate and responsible use of a sock puppet.
- The evidence for his alleged "edit warring" is extremely slim. A
total of four edits, made over the course of three days. The edits were supported by consensus on the talk page. The edits were reverting vandalism-- deletion of a reliable source by a indef-banned vandal who was using an sockpuppet to evade the ban, who had chosen a username specifically designed to harass PM.
- BADSITES is not policy, and we do not indefinitely ban people for
inserting EL to an article merely because those EL have a personal dispute with one of our editors.
No matter how you slice it-- this is NOT a a case for an indefinte ban. The ban should be lifted. Even if people really feel PM drifted into 'edit warring'-- he deserves nothing more than a warning from a neutral admin, something he would surely comply with. An indefinitely ban is unwarranted.
Now let's consider Guy's case:
- He has indefinitely blocked someone he had been in a heated on-going
policy dispute with.
- He has used his admin tools to block a user he was involved in a
content dispute with.
- His claim that the indef block is based on sock puppet abuse is
invalid and shows either poor judgement or insincerity.
- His claim that the indef block is based on edit warring is highly
unwarrented, and shows poor judgement or insincerity.
- His claim that PM's basically violate BADSITES suggests a contempt for
the decisions of Arbcom and the community.
I work hard to AGF-- but it's hard to see Guy's actions as anything but a disruptive bit of drama, banning an editor who was in dispute with him. Perhaps a good explaination will emerge, but barring that event, I strongly feel Guy needs to be desysopped. Granted, I'm biased. I disagree with him over badsites too-- so if he's taking to banning his opponents, I'm probably next in line.
Alec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You may file a request for arbitration if you wish regarding this matter, as may PrivateMusings with respect to his ban.
Fred
I appreciate the offer, but I actually think this will be clear-cut enough that it won't come to having to get Arbcom involved. PM will probably be unblocked as soon as enough eyeballs focus on the issue.
Dealing with Guy's behavior may one day have to go all the way to Arbcom someday, but let's hope not. Hopefully in the light of day, he'll realize his errors. IF not, hopefully the community can convince him that this was an abuse. And if that still doesn't convince him, only then would I even consider involving an already-overloaded Arbcom.
Alec
On 11/1/07, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
You may file a request for arbitration if you wish regarding this matter, as may PrivateMusings with respect to his ban.
I appreciate the offer, but I actually think this will be clear-cut enough that it won't come to having to get Arbcom involved. PM will probably be unblocked as soon as enough eyeballs focus on the issue.
Dealing with Guy's behavior may one day have to go all the way to Arbcom someday, but let's hope not. Hopefully in the light of day, he'll realize his errors. IF not, hopefully the community can convince him that this was an abuse. And if that still doesn't convince him, only then would I even consider involving an already-overloaded Arbcom.
Whether or not this dispute is ripe for arbitration, this mailing list is not an appropriate venue. You should speak to JzG about your concerns, and after that, the administrators' noticeboard is generally a good place to discuss blocks.
I think it's totally appropriate. Some of us participants in the great Wikipedia experiment rely on it to know what's going on -- I for one can't devote all my time and energy to Wikipedia all the time.
On 11/1/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/1/07, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
You may file a request for arbitration if you wish regarding this matter, as may PrivateMusings with respect to his ban.
I appreciate the offer, but I actually think this will be clear-cut enough that it won't come to having to get Arbcom involved. PM will probably be unblocked as soon as enough eyeballs focus on the issue.
Dealing with Guy's behavior may one day have to go all the way to Arbcom someday, but let's hope not. Hopefully in the light of day, he'll realize his errors. IF not, hopefully the community can convince him that this was an abuse. And if that still doesn't convince him, only then would I even consider involving an already-overloaded Arbcom.
Whether or not this dispute is ripe for arbitration, this mailing list is not an appropriate venue. You should speak to JzG about your concerns, and after that, the administrators' noticeboard is generally a good place to discuss blocks.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You may file a request for arbitration if you wish regarding this matter, as may PrivateMusings with respect to his ban.
Fred
I appreciate the offer, but I actually think this will be clear-cut enough that it won't come to having to get Arbcom involved. PM will probably be unblocked as soon as enough eyeballs focus on the issue.
Dealing with Guy's behavior may one day have to go all the way to Arbcom someday, but let's hope not. Hopefully in the light of day, he'll realize his errors. IF not, hopefully the community can convince him that this was an abuse. And if that still doesn't convince him, only then would I even consider involving an already-overloaded Arbcom.
Alec
The question is whether a user in good standing can create an alternate account to troll with.
Fred
On 01/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I appreciate the offer, but I actually think this will be clear-cut enough that it won't come to having to get Arbcom involved. PM will probably be unblocked as soon as enough eyeballs focus on the issue.
The question is whether a user in good standing can create an alternate account to troll with.
Oh, Fred. There you go again, recasting the debate, just like you incessantly did last time the attack-sites policy was discussed on this very list.
The debate isn't about whether or not someone's "permitted to troll", which is obviously not something any sane person differs on. The debate is about whether someone can arbitrarily declare someone else's behaviour trolling, for doing something we'd previously tolerated, and ban them indefinitely... whilst in a dispute with them. Which is an entirely different topic, and - remarkably - one we can discuss without automatically deciding that The Person We Don't Agree With Is Inherently Wrong.
I really wish I didn't have to keep calling you on this. It's embarrassing for all of us.
On Nov 1, 2007 2:32 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The debate is about whether someone can arbitrarily declare someone else's behaviour trolling, for doing something we'd previously tolerated, and ban them indefinitely.
[snip]
I don't think this is the subject of the debate either, at least that particular statement of it isn't very good...
When we indef. ban a user's "single purpose" sock and try to avoid banning the primary account, we haven't banned *the user* indefinitely.
On 01/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2007 2:32 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The debate is about whether someone can arbitrarily declare someone else's behaviour trolling, for doing something we'd previously tolerated, and ban them indefinitely.
[snip]
I don't think this is the subject of the debate either, at least that particular statement of it isn't very good...
Yeah, it does suck a bit. Certainly a lot closer than "do we allow people to troll", to which the answer is a resounding "no" from everyone.
When we indef. ban a user's "single purpose" sock and try to avoid banning the primary account, we haven't banned *the user* indefinitely.
Point. I think I keep getting confused between "block of a particular account" and "block and effective ban of a user" - if nothing else, that's a point in favour of single user single account! ;-)
(now, back to redlinking SA MPs)
On Nov 1, 2007 2:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The question is whether a user in good standing can create an alternate account to troll with.
Is it? I don't think it is... I think the answer to that question is a firm *no*.
But perhaps there is an important difference in our understanding of the meaning of the word 'troll'.
Fred Bauder wrote:
The question is whether a user in good standing can create an alternate account to troll with.
Just to check, Fred, you're saying that Private Musings was trolling?
Also, my understanding of the term "trolling" is that it means posting with intent to cause strong emotional reactions for the sake of disruption. Is that the meaning you're using here?
If so, I'd appreciate some links to that, I as I haven't seen that in the relatively small set of edits I have looked at so far.
Thanks,
William
Fred Bauder wrote:
The question is whether a user in good standing can create an alternate account to troll with.
Just to check, Fred, you're saying that Private Musings was trolling?
Also, my understanding of the term "trolling" is that it means posting with intent to cause strong emotional reactions for the sake of disruption. Is that the meaning you're using here?
If so, I'd appreciate some links to that, I as I haven't seen that in the relatively small set of edits I have looked at so far.
Thanks,
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com
Those are the questions that would have to be answered by a good look at the evidence. Which is why there would need to be a case.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
The question is whether a user in good standing can create an alternate account to troll with.
Just to check, Fred, you're saying that Private Musings was trolling?
Also, my understanding of the term "trolling" is that it means posting with intent to cause strong emotional reactions for the sake of disruption. Is that the meaning you're using here?
If so, I'd appreciate some links to that, I as I haven't seen that in the relatively small set of edits I have looked at so far.
Those are the questions that would have to be answered by a good look at the evidence. Which is why there would need to be a case.
Got it. So is it more accurate to restate your original statement like this?
The question is whether a user in good standing has created an alternate account and then used it for trolling.
The way it was phrased could be (and was) read as an accusation of trolling.
Thanks,
William
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
You may file a request for arbitration if you wish regarding this matter, as may PrivateMusings with respect to his ban.
Fred
I appreciate the offer, but I actually think this will be clear-cut enough that it won't come to having to get Arbcom involved. PM will probably be unblocked as soon as enough eyeballs focus on the issue.
Dealing with Guy's behavior may one day have to go all the way to Arbcom someday, but let's hope not. Hopefully in the light of day, he'll realize his errors. IF not, hopefully the community can convince him that this was an abuse. And if that still doesn't convince him, only then would I even consider involving an already-overloaded Arbcom.
Alec
The question is whether a user in good standing can create an alternate account to troll with.
Fred
There are multiple issues here and we should consider each issue separately. Guy's behavior is a legitimate issue to discuss. As far as I can tell Guy's behavior here was less than perfect but doesn't seem like it needs to go to ArbCom or anything similar. Now as to Fred's comment that " The question is whether a user in good standing can create an alternate account to troll with" I don't even think that's one of the questions at issue here since the account in question never engaged in trolling but rather helpful and reasoned argument. Indeed, this seems to be exactly what Alec complained about earlier when he noted that good-faith arguments against BADSITES and variants thereof seem to frequently get labeled as trolling or pro-harassment.
On Nov 1, 2007 7:20 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
As many know, PrivateMusings is a sock account
[snip]
This use of socks is totally appropriate-- our socks policy explicitly describes socks of this sort as legitimate: "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as
[snip]
I don't think we should apply the same reasoning to participating in community discussions as we do with respect to editing a controversial article.
I think the use of a sock to 'partition' your Wikipedia identity in policy discussions so that you can take contentious positions, or behave in an abrasive manner, without any negative consequences to the reputation of your primary account is an inappropriate use of a sock.
Social pressure is a primary driving factor in creating cooperation and civility. The ability to selective short circuit the social factors by occasionally dropping your pseudonym and commenting anonymously is an enemy to cooperation and civility.
Plus, it makes the rest of us tenured folks who have the courage to stick our names next to difficult positions, accepting the social consequences, look more unusually controversial than we are.
A little bit of this behavior here and there won't hurt us and we couldn't prevent it in any case, but I think privatemusings has gone too far and that outright endorsing this behavior in this case or for others would be terribly unwise.
Quoting Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Nov 1, 2007 7:20 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
As many know, PrivateMusings is a sock account
[snip]
This use of socks is totally appropriate-- our socks policy explicitly describes socks of this sort as legitimate: "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as
[snip]
I don't think we should apply the same reasoning to participating in community discussions as we do with respect to editing a controversial article.
I think the use of a sock to 'partition' your Wikipedia identity in policy discussions so that you can take contentious positions, or behave in an abrasive manner, without any negative consequences to the reputation of your primary account is an inappropriate use of a sock.
Social pressure is a primary driving factor in creating cooperation and civility. The ability to selective short circuit the social factors by occasionally dropping your pseudonym and commenting anonymously is an enemy to cooperation and civility.
Plus, it makes the rest of us tenured folks who have the courage to stick our names next to difficult positions, accepting the social consequences, look more unusually controversial than we are.
A little bit of this behavior here and there won't hurt us and we couldn't prevent it in any case, but I think privatemusings has gone too far and that outright endorsing this behavior in this case or for others would be terribly unwise.
I would be inclined to agree but for the fact that the user has been by and large civil, indeed far more civil than many of the open individuals involved in the BADSITES discussions. Arguments should in general be evaluated based on their strength, not who is making them. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that I'd rather have a sock of this sort dedicated to policy and such than one involved in articles since this sort doesn't raise COI concerns in the same way. If one has a problem with such socks, we should establish a community consensus that they are problematic, not block them out of hand.
Some editors in the debate over external harassment seem to have lost sight of the objective, which is to keep information about the identity of Wikipedia editors private. The action of edit-warring over a link which, if followed, purports to identify a Wikipedian, simply has the effect of drawing attention to the link and therefore to the purported identity. It also feeds off itself in that it creates even more debate over whether the edit-war is justified and whether administrative actions taken in relation to it were good. If the link had just been ignored in the first place none of this would happen.
This particular identity has had such extensive off-wiki publicity that I would say it becomes rather futile to remove all links to it. The horse has not merely bolted, but has left the paddock and is now running freely on the meadow.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I don't think we should apply the same reasoning to participating in community discussions as we do with respect to editing a controversial article.
I think the use of a sock to 'partition' your Wikipedia identity in policy discussions so that you can take contentious positions, or behave in an abrasive manner, without any negative consequences to the reputation of your primary account is an inappropriate use of a sock.
I agree.
The canonical example of a reasonable use of an alternative account is editing to counter activist bias in an area where even editing the articles is perhaps something you are concerned about from an external reputation point of view.
I remember a case of someone contacting me and saying that some pedophilia-related articles seemed to have a strong pro-pedophile bias. I checked, and it looked true to me. He said that he edits Wikipedia openly under his own name, and his colleagues at work know this and sometimes look at his contributions. Even editing articles about pedophilia made him feel uncomfortable, with respect to his professional reputation. He wanted to know if it was ok to use an alternative account.
Yes, of course.
This is very different from sockpuppeting to advocate for contentious positions in policy debates.
Social pressure is a primary driving factor in creating cooperation and civility. The ability to selective short circuit the social factors by occasionally dropping your pseudonym and commenting anonymously is an enemy to cooperation and civility.
That's right.
Plus, it makes the rest of us tenured folks who have the courage to stick our names next to difficult positions, accepting the social consequences, look more unusually controversial than we are.
A little bit of this behavior here and there won't hurt us and we couldn't prevent it in any case, but I think privatemusings has gone too far and that outright endorsing this behavior in this case or for others would be terribly unwise.
I have not reviewed his contributions yet, and so I am commenting only on the general principles, not on this particular case.
--Jimbo
On 11/1/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
[some very wise, balanced and considered words]
To counter all the reasonableness blooming in this thread, here is a bit of levity for comic relief (from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoe&oldid=4223822 ):
"Actually, I'm Zoe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zoe. After Tim Starling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling discovered that I had two admin accounts, he tried to blackmail me - but I threatened to reveal that he was user:Michaelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Michael&action=edit(he'd been vandalising Wikipedia in order to gain support to allow sysops to block logged in users - all part of his strategy to overthrow Eloquence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales and his wife Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence, in favour of a new reign by a crack team of vigilante sysops (this plan was foiled by the group now known as the "arbitration cabalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitrators", who threatened to go public that Jimbo was in fact Elvis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis, and engineered their new power - you'll notice that the number of arbcom people required to ban now follows the Rule of Fivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism,
after we weeded out the inclusionist infiltrators) - chief amongst them being his two sons: RickK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela and Angela http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RickK (Angela is the same person as mav, actually, and logs in to different accounts depending on whether he's sober or not). This all came to a head in the famous Gaiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaiaoutbreak fnord http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord, but the *real* cause of that was suppressed of course). Obviously I had to manufacture a quick exit from Wikipediahttp://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ExitStrategyfor one of my accounts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet to resolve the problem, and since Zoe had been playing "bad cop" to my "good cop"http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodCopBadCop,
she was the right one to take the fall. I engineered a few bad judgement calls, and then criticised them politely but firmly from this account, and with a rather clumsly nudge or two from my collaborators, the rest was far too predictable, and even Oliver P. couldn't stop it. Of course, I can tell you all this now, because the AC is on the brink of immanentising the Eschaton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschaton, and besides none of the "Wikipedia establishment", the dupes, will take this seriously (the WikiSex incidenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowgirl_sex_positionwas carefully engineered to lower the credibility of this account, and I controlled (directly or indirectly) all the accounts involved, and most of those in the deletion discussion).
23 Skidoo. -- The Controller (posting as Martinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyRedDice22:57, 27 May 2004 (UTC))"
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 01/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
A little bit of this behavior here and there won't hurt us and we couldn't prevent it in any case, but I think privatemusings has gone too far and that outright endorsing this behavior in this case or for others would be terribly unwise.
As someone who's signed his name to somewhat outrageous proposals in the past, I agree. (There are days I wonder if I sit on this list as an echo chamber for Greg...)
On the other hand... in this specific case, the account was established and we'd been letting it be used for quite a while. It seems reasonable to expect that if we've tolerated a specific case this long, and the user's not become vastly more disruptive or more crazy, we should let it slide - because that's what policy is, it's a description of what we do and how we go about things.
On 11/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand... in this specific case, the account was established and we'd been letting it be used for quite a while. It seems reasonable to expect that if we've tolerated a specific case this long, and the user's not become vastly more disruptive or more crazy, we should let it slide - because that's what policy is, it's a description of what we do and how we go about things.
For me, the use in discussion was one thing, but the use to edit war over a contentious link went over the line. Others may disagree.
-Matt
On Nov 1, 2007 12:33 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand... in this specific case, the account was established and we'd been letting it be used for quite a while. It seems reasonable to expect that if we've tolerated a specific case this long, and the user's not become vastly more disruptive or more crazy, we should let it slide - because that's what policy is, it's a description of what we do and how we go about things.
For me, the use in discussion was one thing, but the use to edit war over a contentious link went over the line. Others may disagree.
The edit war was clearly inappropriate; a block would not be a disproportionate response. An indefinite block, though...I'm not sure the argument for this is completely sound.
But Stephen Bain is right - this is an issue which should've been brought up with JzG first, and ANI second - there's nothing necessarily wrong with bringing it up in this forum, but an approach which would likely produce results would be to contact JzG and attempt to sort things out on ANI.
Johnleemk
On Nov 1, 2007 12:33 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
For me, the use in discussion was one thing, but the use to edit war over a contentious link went over the line. Others may disagree.
I just wanted to remark that I think it's a really good discussion when every new post manages to swing my view to the other side from the one I was holding before.
I'm confident about the general argument I made ... My exact view on privatemusings is, at the moment, that it was over the line.. but that will probably change with the next message in the thread. ;) Suddenly Wikipedia is fun again.
:)
On Nov 1, 2007 12:33 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
For me, the use in discussion was one thing, but the use to edit war over a contentious link went over the line. Others may disagree.
I just wanted to remark that I think it's a really good discussion when every new post manages to swing my view to the other side from the one I was holding before.
I'm confident about the general argument I made ... My exact view on privatemusings is, at the moment, that it was over the line.. but that will probably change with the next message in the thread. ;) Suddenly Wikipedia is fun again.
:)
What a true, but nasty idea. I am always pissed when that happens and then someone expects me to have a firm opinion NOW. And stick to it. I guess there is eventually a bottom line. But that takes thought and hard choices.
Fred
On 11/1/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
What a true, but nasty idea. I am always pissed when that happens and then someone expects me to have a firm opinion NOW. And stick to it. I guess there is eventually a bottom line. But that takes thought and hard choices.
I'm not familiar with the underlying issue here, nor am I asking anyone to explain it to me. I just felt compelled to reply to Fred's strange comment above, even if it is savagely out-of-context.
I doubt (most) people expect you to have a "firm opinion now", and I don't think that's a reasonable expectation to put on anyone, even in politics. I have noticed that early on in quite a few arbitration cases, you do appear to have a "firm opinion now". I must admit this is something I found more worrying than comforting, but I always assumed it was an intrinsic behavior, just the way you were. If in fact you feel that somebody expects (or even demands) this of you, I believe you'd do better to ignore that sort of pressure.
Just say what you believe, but not until you have reason to believe it, and not because you think it's what anybody anywhere wants to hear. If you're not sure yet, sleep on it. Not as if the broken globe of Wikipedia is going to turn into a pumpkin while you wait.
And of course if you are persuaded to change your mind later, that's nothing to be ashamed of. In practice, a willingness to reconsider a previous comment will probably gain more respect than "jumping ship" will lose (not that anybody should be playing for respect rather than justice anyway... *sigh*).
—C.W.
Alec Conroy wrote:
There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances.
Setting aside the question of the block for a moment, I'm curious about the incident that triggered the block.
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
The link was removed within 24 hours by a newly created account called "Privacyisall", which has only edited around this, and shows enough instant facility with Wikipedia that the account could well be a sock. The edit summary: "Remove blog which outs and attacks our editors as per Arbcom ruling."
So if I got that right, it seems to me that here we have another case along the lines of Micheal Moore.
Prof. Black is an intentionally public figure talking about a topic on which he is a credentialed expert. He starts an official blog, which seems relevant, so we mention it. We include a link, both because statements in articles should be verifiable, and because if somebody is interested enough to read about Robert Black, they could well be interested in reading his blog.
However, once Black mentions something we personally don't like, we remove the link. He's not attacking anybody, the mention is clearly pertinent to his field of interest, and the link on Wikipedia couldn't possibly have been included as part of an attack. But still, putting the link back is considered a serious enough offense that the account involved is blocked, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for the blocking.
If we can have this much drama, it sounds like we don't have enough consensus yet. What can we do to create more?
William
Alec Conroy wrote:
There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances.
Setting aside the question of the block for a moment, I'm curious about the incident that triggered the block.
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
The link was removed within 24 hours by a newly created account called "Privacyisall", which has only edited around this, and shows enough instant facility with Wikipedia that the account could well be a sock. The edit summary: "Remove blog which outs and attacks our editors as per Arbcom ruling."
So if I got that right, it seems to me that here we have another case along the lines of Micheal Moore.
Prof. Black is an intentionally public figure talking about a topic on which he is a credentialed expert. He starts an official blog, which seems relevant, so we mention it. We include a link, both because statements in articles should be verifiable, and because if somebody is interested enough to read about Robert Black, they could well be interested in reading his blog.
However, once Black mentions something we personally don't like, we remove the link. He's not attacking anybody, the mention is clearly pertinent to his field of interest, and the link on Wikipedia couldn't possibly have been included as part of an attack. But still, putting the link back is considered a serious enough offense that the account involved is blocked, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for the blocking.
If we can have this much drama, it sounds like we don't have enough consensus yet. What can we do to create more?
William
He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
We're not; we're linking to *a notable source* that may have also published defamatory information. The _New York Times_ has also published defamatory information, some of which may be retrieved through its online archives, but we still link to nytimes.com. Heck we link to stormfront.org, which has even more obviously published defamatory information and exists mainly to publish racial attacks---but is nonetheless still notable.
IMO, when it comes to notable sources, when or if they should remove information becomes their problem, not ours. If an article should be removed from a NY Times archive, or a well-known professor's blog, that's a matter to take up with them, not with us. This is a quite different case from a site that *isn't* notable, and whose entire purpose is to publish defamatory information, and for which there is no reason to link to in the first place.
-Mark
Fred Bauder wrote:
Prof. Black is an intentionally public figure talking about a topic on which he is a credentialed expert. He starts an official blog, which seems relevant, so we mention it. We include a link, both because statements in articles should be verifiable, and because if somebody is interested enough to read about Robert Black, they could well be interested in reading his blog.
However, once Black mentions something we personally don't like, we remove the link. He's not attacking anybody, the mention is clearly pertinent to his field of interest, and the link on Wikipedia couldn't possibly have been included as part of an attack. But still, putting the link back is considered a serious enough offense that the account involved is blocked, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for the blocking.
If we can have this much drama, it sounds like we don't have enough consensus yet. What can we do to create more?
He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
I thought I explained pretty well why we should link to his site. Let me try again.
He's writing about his area of expertise, and that's clearly pertinent to his biography, in the same way his writing a book or an article would be. Failure to link to his blog when we mention that it exists violates WP:V. Removing all mention of the blog would be a failure to mention a relevant fact in an article because we don't like what the article subject says; that violates WP:NPOV.
Either one goes against the animating spirit of the project:
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
That's not "all human knowledge we like" or "all human knowledge we think you're ready to handle". Wikipedia should not be in the business of making moral judgments about the topics we cover: that's the reader's job.
If you would like to propose a policy where we do not link to any source that contains discussion of things that might be defamatory, by all means propose it. But I strongly believe it does not flow from the core policies or our shared principles, so I think it will have to be a new policy.
William
William Pietri wrote:
He's writing about his area of expertise, and that's clearly pertinent to his biography, in the same way his writing a book or an article would be. Failure to link to his blog when we mention that it exists violates WP:V. Removing all mention of the blog would be a failure to mention a relevant fact in an article because we don't like what the article subject says; that violates WP:NPOV.
Either one goes against the animating spirit of the project:
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
That's not "all human knowledge we like" or "all human knowledge we think you're ready to handle". Wikipedia should not be in the business of making moral judgments about the topics we cover: that's the reader's job.
If you would like to propose a policy where we do not link to any source that contains discussion of things that might be defamatory, by all means propose it. But I strongly believe it does not flow from the core policies or our shared principles, so I think it will have to be a new policy.
Indeed. The more I see the struggles connected with BADSITES the more I'm convinced that there is a handful of people incapable of taking a mature and nuanced view of the issue. Even with breaches of privacy there could be cases where revealing an identity _may_ be justified, such as when a person is using a pseudonym to mask a serious conflict of interest. (A tobacco company executive claiming that smoking is good for you?)
There are points and principles where there is a strong common consesnsus. Nobody supports inappropriate breaches of privacy, or defamation, or personal attacks. Despite that the majority are capable of seeing that the serious misbehaviour of a few should not justify extreme restrictions on everybody's freedoms to do things. That's the essence of assuming good faith. Does it take so much subtlety to understand that good faith is not dependent on the reader's willingness to feel injury.
Ec
Either one goes against the animating spirit of the project:
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given
free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
William
But not the sum of all human speculation.
Fred
On 02/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Either one goes against the animating spirit of the project: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
But not the sum of all human speculation.
You're making broad statements that don't seem to have much to productively add to the attempts to have a reasonably nuanced and specific discussion.
- d.
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Either one goes against the animating spirit of the project:
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given
free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
William
But not the sum of all human speculation.
Fred
Again Fred you are missing the point. The link itself is within the sum of all human knowledge. That on the same website their is speculation we don't like doesn't change that. I also have to say I'm finding your one sentence replies(or in this case less than one sentence) to complicated issues irritating; in some cases they reflect a lack of appreciation for nuance or complexity while in others you end up sending out clarification emails after 4 or 5 people have responded to the original taking it for granted. It would save everyone time and likely increase the productivity of this and other discussions if you replied with a bit more detail. (And yes before anyone comments I know I sometimes have the opposite problem)
Fred Bauder wrote:
Either one goes against the animating spirit of the project:
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given
free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
But not the sum of all human speculation.
As I've said before, Fred, I feel you have an unfortunate habit of replying to a long message, and making one short argumentative reply, often apparently tangential to the main point of the post you're replying to. I think this does little to advance the discussion. Certainly it rarely helps me understand what you're talking about. All the more so when you give several replies like that in a thread.
If you'd like to make a concrete point here, I'd suggest you go for a couple of paragraphs, stating whatever it is that you're trying to state from first principles, and showing how you'd apply them in this particular situation.
On the upside, I see you've switched over to a mail client that is more compliant with standards. Thanks for that.
William
On 11/1/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Either one goes against the animating spirit of the project:
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given
free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
But not the sum of all human speculation.
As I've said before, Fred, I feel you have an unfortunate habit of replying to a long message, and making one short argumentative reply, often apparently tangential to the main point of the post you're replying to.
' This is known as "trolling".
Of course, Fred is brilliantly demonstrating one of the higher forms of the art, by trolling by obliquely accusing people of trolling.
On 01/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is valid.
Name one news organisation of any significance for which that isn't true.
Why would we link to defamatory information?
Fred
Because not including a link in the 4chan article would be somewhat odd.
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Alec Conroy wrote:
There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances.
Setting aside the question of the block for a moment, I'm curious about the incident that triggered the block.
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
The link was removed within 24 hours by a newly created account called "Privacyisall", which has only edited around this, and shows enough instant facility with Wikipedia that the account could well be a sock. The edit summary: "Remove blog which outs and attacks our editors as per Arbcom ruling."
So if I got that right, it seems to me that here we have another case along the lines of Micheal Moore.
Prof. Black is an intentionally public figure talking about a topic on which he is a credentialed expert. He starts an official blog, which seems relevant, so we mention it. We include a link, both because statements in articles should be verifiable, and because if somebody is interested enough to read about Robert Black, they could well be interested in reading his blog.
However, once Black mentions something we personally don't like, we remove the link. He's not attacking anybody, the mention is clearly pertinent to his field of interest, and the link on Wikipedia couldn't possibly have been included as part of an attack. But still, putting the link back is considered a serious enough offense that the account involved is blocked, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for the blocking.
If we can have this much drama, it sounds like we don't have enough consensus yet. What can we do to create more?
William
He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
Huh? Do you mean Black has done so? Saying "X claims that Y" is now "defamatory information" that we can't link to even if it is a link we'd otherwise have in article space? What if it weren't Black but the New York Times? Or what if it were Black but the information was about an editor of say the German Wikipedia or a non-Wikimedia project?
Finally, I do hope you realize what this would look like to the general public; Wikipedia will censor any links that even mention the possibility that another site outed a Wikipedian. Are we trying to look like something out of Catch-22?
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Alec Conroy wrote:
There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances.
Setting aside the question of the block for a moment, I'm curious about the incident that triggered the block.
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
The link was removed within 24 hours by a newly created account called "Privacyisall", which has only edited around this, and shows enough instant facility with Wikipedia that the account could well be a sock. The edit summary: "Remove blog which outs and attacks our editors as per Arbcom ruling."
So if I got that right, it seems to me that here we have another case along the lines of Micheal Moore.
Prof. Black is an intentionally public figure talking about a topic on which he is a credentialed expert. He starts an official blog, which seems relevant, so we mention it. We include a link, both because statements in articles should be verifiable, and because if somebody is interested enough to read about Robert Black, they could well be interested in reading his blog.
However, once Black mentions something we personally don't like, we remove the link. He's not attacking anybody, the mention is clearly pertinent to his field of interest, and the link on Wikipedia couldn't possibly have been included as part of an attack. But still, putting the link back is considered a serious enough offense that the account involved is blocked, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for the blocking.
If we can have this much drama, it sounds like we don't have enough consensus yet. What can we do to create more?
William
He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
Huh? Do you mean Black has done so? Saying "X claims that Y" is now "defamatory information" that we can't link to even if it is a link we'd otherwise have in article space? What if it weren't Black but the New York Times? Or what if it were Black but the information was about an editor of say the German Wikipedia or a non-Wikimedia project?
Finally, I do hope you realize what this would look like to the general public; Wikipedia will censor any links that even mention the possibility that another site outed a Wikipedian. Are we trying to look like something out of Catch-22?
What it is, is "fact laundering", see Wikipedia:Fact laundering
Responsible media don't generally engage in it.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
What it is, is "fact laundering", see Wikipedia:Fact laundering
Responsible media don't generally engage in it.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand.
Who are you suggesting is laundering facts here? Robert Black? Private Musings? Someone else?
Thanks,
William
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Alec Conroy wrote:
There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances.
Setting aside the question of the block for a moment, I'm curious about the incident that triggered the block.
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
The link was removed within 24 hours by a newly created account called "Privacyisall", which has only edited around this, and shows enough instant facility with Wikipedia that the account could well be a sock. The edit summary: "Remove blog which outs and attacks our editors as per Arbcom ruling."
So if I got that right, it seems to me that here we have another case along the lines of Micheal Moore.
Prof. Black is an intentionally public figure talking about a topic on which he is a credentialed expert. He starts an official blog, which seems relevant, so we mention it. We include a link, both because statements in articles should be verifiable, and because if somebody is interested enough to read about Robert Black, they could well be interested in reading his blog.
However, once Black mentions something we personally don't like, we remove the link. He's not attacking anybody, the mention is clearly pertinent to his field of interest, and the link on Wikipedia couldn't possibly have been included as part of an attack. But still, putting the link back is considered a serious enough offense that the account involved is blocked, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for the blocking.
If we can have this much drama, it sounds like we don't have enough consensus yet. What can we do to create more?
William
He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
Huh? Do you mean Black has done so? Saying "X claims that Y" is now "defamatory information" that we can't link to even if it is a link we'd otherwise have in article space? What if it weren't Black but the New York Times? Or what if it were Black but the information was about an editor of say the German Wikipedia or a non-Wikimedia project?
Finally, I do hope you realize what this would look like to the general public; Wikipedia will censor any links that even mention the possibility that another site outed a Wikipedian. Are we trying to look like something out of Catch-22?
What it is, is "fact laundering", see Wikipedia:Fact laundering
Responsible media don't generally engage in it.
Fred
I've your essay and frankly I don't see its relevance at all. First, responsible media all the time say "According to X, Y", in fact we do that for controversial statements all the time and that's what we're supposed to do. How this became "fact laundering" is beyond me. And it isn't clear to me who you mean is "fact laundering". Do you mean Black? Even if he is, and this neologism is somehow a bad thing how is that relevant to whether or not we should link to his blog? Are you saying we wouldn't link to his blog if he "fact laundered" these sorts of statements about a non-Wikipedian? If there's a difference we're back to the same problem.
Do you possibly mean someone else is fact laundering here? If so, who?
On 01/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
It isn't the same thing at all, since it would be insisting that the socks be associated with Wikipedia editors, not the user's True Names. To be clear, I'm not in favor of this policy, but I don't see it as hypocritical.
Someone who wishes to remain anonymous pointed out that my above comment isn't correct. Suppose that the person with the main account has the user's legal name associated with that account either publicly on their userpage or simply well known and does not want a given subject associated with their legal name. It seems reasonable that if someone doesn't object to associating somethings with their legal name but does object to other things that that would be a valid privacy concern.
On 11/1/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
While your point may be valid in this particular case (I don't know, since no one has linked to the article, and I haven't yet bothered to look it up), making such a general and overreactionary statement is uncalled for. There are plenty of situations when it makes sense to link to defamatory statements, situations in which the fact that the statement was made is itself notable.
And beyond that, who's to determine what constitutes defamation? And how are they supposed to determine it without someone linking to it? I hope I misread your statement and you're not seriously suggesting that linking to defamatory information is never OK.
Alec Conroy wrote:
There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances.
Setting aside the question of the block for a moment, I'm curious about the incident that triggered the block.
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! Previous scandals such the Seigenthaler case, exposing Essjay, and the WikiScanner program by Virgil Griffith, received wide coverage. But there was silence about SlimVirgin, comparable to the silence on classic themes such as UFOs and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
This year such themes have been completely ignored by major media, even when new light is shed on these twentieth-century mysteries. First the famous E. Howard Hunt, who personally participated in many covert operations during the 1950s and 1960s, admitted before he died that the assassination of President Kennedy was organized by U.S. intelligence, in conjunction with the Mafia and top administration officials, headed by Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Several months later a notarized deathbed confession by Walter Haut was published. In 1947 he was the public relations officer at the 509th Bomb Group based in Roswell, New Mexico. First he composed a press release about the crash of a flying disc, and soon followed with a new release about a weather balloon. For the rest of his life he gave evasive explanations of what was really found, but just before he died he dared to tell the truth. In the document he left behind, Walter Haut states that he not only saw the wrecked spacecraft, but also the bodies of aliens recovered from it. They had unusually large heads, and bodies the size of a ten-year-old child. It is clear that the deathbed confessions of people who participated in these extraordinary events deserve serious attention. But the major media ignored both of them.
Moreover, the sensational confession of E. Howard Hunt did not even get any space in Wikipedia's article on the assassination of John F. Kennedy (at least it is mentioned in the article on E. Howard Hunt). The confession of Walter Haut is reflected in the article about the Roswell incident, but it lacks a direct reference to the document published on the web. Thus, the conclusion: for important Wikipedia articles, the content is gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources. It is more or less understandable who is behind this. Everyone must decide for himself or herself whether this is acceptable."
How about them apples...? I've always wondered about that disc business.
Fred
On 02/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
See, that's convincing. But when we're talking about abstract things that are too awful to actually link to so people can, er, see ... then it's hard to see.
- d.
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 02/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
See, that's convincing. But when we're talking about abstract things that are too awful to actually link to so people can, er, see ... then it's hard to see.
For the record, the link that we actually care about is this one: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/10/wikipedia-and-lockerbie.html . It may be instructive examine what the link itself actually says.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Alec Conroy wrote: If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
<snip>
But the issue is not the link that the professor linked to, but rather a link to the professor's own site (and not even to the specific blog entry but rather to the front page of the site as a whole). If BADSITES becomes transitive so that we can no longer link to sites that link to sites that have "forbidden" information we're going to have to start culling out a tremendous number of otherwise innocuous URLs. Where does the BADSITE taint end?
Anyway, here's what he _actually_ wrote: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/10/wikipedia-and-lockerbie.html
The professor posted just a single paragraph there and it contains none of the speculations you describe. I note that all the text you pasted here is actually present on the page now, though, because you yourself pasted it into the comments section there. This strikes me as somewhat hypocritical.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! ... Thus, the conclusion: for important Wikipedia articles, the content is gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources. It is more or less understandable who is behind this. Everyone must decide for himself or herself whether this is acceptable."
Apologies if I missed some irony somewhere, but: is this actually garbage? The stated conclusion is that Wikipedia's content is "gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources." That's hardly surprising, given our increasing insistence on reliable sources. But it does mean that the "extreme" views may tend to become marginalized. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a fair question, and in the excerpt presented, it's not clear to me that Professor Black is advocating one side or the other.
What *is* clear is that Professor Black is putting SlimVirgin outing theories in the same kettle as JFK assassination theories and alien spaceship theories. If you have made a decision for yourself (as Black suggests you should), and if your conclusion is that it's acceptable for all three of these theories to be marginalized, it sounds to me like the good professor agrees with you (in that three such theories ought to stand together or fall together), so it's not clear to me why he's now the reigning poster child for the policy that must not be called badsites.
Quoting Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! ... Thus, the conclusion: for important Wikipedia articles, the content is gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources. It is more or less understandable who is behind this. Everyone must decide for himself or herself whether this is acceptable."
Apologies if I missed some irony somewhere, but: is this actually garbage? The stated conclusion is that Wikipedia's content is "gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources." That's hardly surprising, given our increasing insistence on reliable sources. But it does mean that the "extreme" views may tend to become marginalized. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a fair question, and in the excerpt presented, it's not clear to me that Professor Black is advocating one side or the other.
What *is* clear is that Professor Black is putting SlimVirgin outing theories in the same kettle as JFK assassination theories and alien spaceship theories. If you have made a decision for yourself (as Black suggests you should), and if your conclusion is that it's acceptable for all three of these theories to be marginalized, it sounds to me like the good professor agrees with you (in that three such theories ought to stand together or fall together), so it's not clear to me why he's now the reigning poster child for the policy that must not be called badsites.
Er again, this wasn't what Black said but what Black linked to. He didn't endorse aliens etc.
Quoting Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! ... Thus, the conclusion: for important Wikipedia articles, the content is gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources. It is more or less understandable who is behind this. Everyone must decide for himself or herself whether this is acceptable."
Apologies if I missed some irony somewhere, but: is this actually garbage? The stated conclusion is that Wikipedia's content is "gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources." That's hardly surprising, given our increasing insistence on reliable sources. But it does mean that the "extreme" views may tend to become marginalized. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a fair question, and in the excerpt presented, it's not clear to me that Professor Black is advocating one side or the other.
What *is* clear is that Professor Black is putting SlimVirgin outing theories in the same kettle as JFK assassination theories and alien spaceship theories. If you have made a decision for yourself (as Black suggests you should), and if your conclusion is that it's acceptable for all three of these theories to be marginalized, it sounds to me like the good professor agrees with you (in that three such theories ought to stand together or fall together), so it's not clear to me why he's now the reigning poster child for the policy that must not be called badsites.
Er again, this wasn't what Black said but what Black linked to. He didn't endorse aliens etc.
Here's what he says on his blog in response to my question regarding whether had had any evidence that the information he linked to was true:
"Robert Black has left a new comment on the post "Wikipedia and Lockerbie":
I have no personal knowledge about the identity of SlimVirgin. I simply report what is already in the public domain that might be of interest or concern to those following the Lockerbie tragedy.
My knowledge of Linda Mack is hearsay, derived from Lockerbie dramatis personae who encountered her in the flesh and whose views I respect."
From a lawyer, that statement amounts to: "Yes, I am enjoying this fine
meal of crow."
He admits he knows nothing.
Fred
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Quoting Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! ... Thus, the conclusion: for important Wikipedia articles, the content is gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources. It is more or less understandable who is behind this. Everyone must decide for himself or herself whether this is acceptable."
Apologies if I missed some irony somewhere, but: is this actually garbage? The stated conclusion is that Wikipedia's content is "gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources." That's hardly surprising, given our increasing insistence on reliable sources. But it does mean that the "extreme" views may tend to become marginalized. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a fair question, and in the excerpt presented, it's not clear to me that Professor Black is advocating one side or the other.
What *is* clear is that Professor Black is putting SlimVirgin outing theories in the same kettle as JFK assassination theories and alien spaceship theories. If you have made a decision for yourself (as Black suggests you should), and if your conclusion is that it's acceptable for all three of these theories to be marginalized, it sounds to me like the good professor agrees with you (in that three such theories ought to stand together or fall together), so it's not clear to me why he's now the reigning poster child for the policy that must not be called badsites.
Er again, this wasn't what Black said but what Black linked to. He didn't endorse aliens etc.
Here's what he says on his blog in response to my question regarding whether had had any evidence that the information he linked to was true:
"Robert Black has left a new comment on the post "Wikipedia and Lockerbie":
I have no personal knowledge about the identity of SlimVirgin. I simply report what is already in the public domain that might be of interest or concern to those following the Lockerbie tragedy.
My knowledge of Linda Mack is hearsay, derived from Lockerbie dramatis personae who encountered her in the flesh and whose views I respect."
From a lawyer, that statement amounts to: "Yes, I am enjoying this fine
meal of crow."
He admits he knows nothing.
Fred
Again Fred, how this is relevant to whether or not we should link to it as it is his blog in the article about him? Humans all the time don't have first-hand knowledge of something but say "Hey! This is an interesting claim". Are you asserting that we can't link to any blog that contains speculation at all?
Fred Bauder wrote:
"Robert Black has left a new comment on the post "Wikipedia and Lockerbie":
I have no personal knowledge about the identity of SlimVirgin. I simply report what is already in the public domain that might be of interest or concern to those following the Lockerbie tragedy.
My knowledge of Linda Mack is hearsay, derived from Lockerbie dramatis personae who encountered her in the flesh and whose views I respect."
From a lawyer, that statement amounts to: "Yes, I am enjoying this fine meal of crow."
He admits he knows nothing.
He already had "allegedly" in front of SlimVirgin's real name right from the start. I don't see how this changes anything, or for that matter what he really did wrong in the the first place here.
And I _certainly_ don't see why any of this has any bearing on linking to the front page of his blog as a reference for the statement "he has a blog on subject X".
Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
Quoting Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
Apologies if I missed some irony somewhere, but: is this actually garbage? ...Professor Black is putting SlimVirgin outing theories in the same kettle as JFK assassination theories and alien spaceship theories...
Er again, this wasn't what Black said but what Black linked to. He didn't endorse aliens etc.
Yeah, I felt kinda foolish after I posted that. But then, on reflection, I didn't feel so foolish after all; I think it was a pretty easy mistake to make.
This whole debate is about banning links to sites that say things we don't like about Wikipedians. So I naturally assumed (after an, I admit, too-quick reading) that Fred's quoted text was something questionable Professor Black had written that we might not want to link to. But now evidently we're talking about banning links to sites that link to things we don't like about Wikipedians? Really?
Fred Bauder wrote:
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! Previous scandals such the Seigenthaler case, exposing Essjay, and the WikiScanner program by Virgil Griffith, received wide coverage. But there was silence about SlimVirgin, comparable to the silence on classic themes such as UFOs and the assassination of John F. Kennedy."
[rest of quote snipped]
How about them apples...? I've always wondered about that disc business.
For those who haven't read the blog, just to be clear, Professor Black only linked to the page containing this, and didn't mention UFOs or JFK's assassination in his one-sentence summary. The only part that appears to interest him is that a name already known to him in the context of the Lockerbie investigation may also be a Wikipedia editor involved in editing articles related to the Lockerbie bombing.
Fred, are you seriously suggesting that we should only mention a biography subject's blog when everything they link to meets your standards? That seems like an unreasonably high bar.
If you're suggesting something else, it would be helpful if you said what it is.
William
Fred Bauder wrote:
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! Previous scandals such the Seigenthaler case, exposing Essjay, and the WikiScanner program by Virgil Griffith, received wide coverage. But there was silence about SlimVirgin, comparable to the silence on classic themes such as UFOs and the assassination of John F. Kennedy."
[rest of quote snipped]
How about them apples...? I've always wondered about that disc business.
For those who haven't read the blog, just to be clear, Professor Black only linked to the page containing this, and didn't mention UFOs or JFK's assassination in his one-sentence summary. The only part that appears to interest him is that a name already known to him in the context of the Lockerbie investigation may also be a Wikipedia editor involved in editing articles related to the Lockerbie bombing.
Fred, are you seriously suggesting that we should only mention a biography subject's blog when everything they link to meets your standards? That seems like an unreasonably high bar.
If you're suggesting something else, it would be helpful if you said what it is.
William
However prominent Black is, we're dealing with a conspiracy theorist who deserves the usual bum's rush.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
However prominent Black is, we're dealing with a conspiracy theorist who deserves the usual bum's rush.
Another (black) sheep sacrificed on the altar of BADSITES.
<poem> [[Greek chorus|Chorus]]: Why do you cry out thus, unless at some vision of horror? [[Cassandra]]: The house reeks of death and dripping blood. Chorus: How so, it is but the odor of the altar sacrifice. Cassandra: The stench is like a breath from the tomb. [[Aeschylus]], ''[[The Oresteia|Agamemnon]]'' </poem>
Fred
On 02/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
<poem> [[Greek chorus|Chorus]]: Why do you cry out thus, unless at some vision of horror? [[Cassandra]]: The house reeks of death and dripping blood. Chorus: How so, it is but the odor of the altar sacrifice. Cassandra: The stench is like a breath from the tomb. [[Aeschylus]], ''[[The Oresteia|Agamemnon]]'' </poem>
Fred
If your posts to the mailing list do not improve beyond random trolling, I am going to place you on moderation. Which would be embarrassing for both you and Wikipedia. So belt up.
~Mark Ryan
On 02/11/2007, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Fred, are you seriously suggesting that we should only mention a biography subject's blog when everything they link to meets your standards? That seems like an unreasonably high bar.
If you're suggesting something else, it would be helpful if you said what it is.
However prominent Black is, we're dealing with a conspiracy theorist who deserves the usual bum's rush.
...so we should just give the "usual bum's rush", however defined, to anyone Fred Bauder arbitrarily decrees to be a conspiracy theorist?
This would be a man you decreed to be a conspiracy theorist based on words *he didn't say*, and on his response to you randomly throwing screeds of junk at him to be to say 'I don't have a dog in this fight'?
I can safely say that there is one person behaving like a wild-eyed fervent crank here, and that it sure as hell isn't Professor Black.
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Fred Bauder wrote:
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! Previous scandals such the Seigenthaler case, exposing Essjay, and the WikiScanner program by Virgil Griffith, received wide coverage. But there was silence about SlimVirgin, comparable to the silence on classic themes such as UFOs and the assassination of John F. Kennedy."
[rest of quote snipped]
How about them apples...? I've always wondered about that disc business.
For those who haven't read the blog, just to be clear, Professor Black only linked to the page containing this, and didn't mention UFOs or JFK's assassination in his one-sentence summary. The only part that appears to interest him is that a name already known to him in the context of the Lockerbie investigation may also be a Wikipedia editor involved in editing articles related to the Lockerbie bombing.
Fred, are you seriously suggesting that we should only mention a biography subject's blog when everything they link to meets your standards? That seems like an unreasonably high bar.
If you're suggesting something else, it would be helpful if you said what it is.
William
However prominent Black is, we're dealing with a conspiracy theorist who deserves the usual bum's rush.
Fred
What? Linking to a conspiracy theory website makes him a "conspiracy theorist"? External links to conspiracy theorists are no longer acceptable? Or is it just conspiracy theorists who happen to mention notions we don't like regardless of how notable they are?
On 11/2/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! Previous scandals such the Seigenthaler case, exposing Essjay, and the WikiScanner program by Virgil Griffith, received wide coverage. But there was silence about SlimVirgin, comparable to the silence on classic themes such as UFOs and the assassination of John F. Kennedy."
[rest of quote snipped]
How about them apples...? I've always wondered about that disc business.
For those who haven't read the blog, just to be clear, Professor Black only linked to the page containing this, and didn't mention UFOs or JFK's assassination in his one-sentence summary. The only part that appears to interest him is that a name already known to him in the context of the Lockerbie investigation may also be a Wikipedia editor involved in editing articles related to the Lockerbie bombing.
Fred, are you seriously suggesting that we should only mention a biography subject's blog when everything they link to meets your standards? That seems like an unreasonably high bar.
If you're suggesting something else, it would be helpful if you said what it is.
William
However prominent Black is, we're dealing with a conspiracy theorist who deserves the usual bum's rush.
Fred
Fred
The missed point here is that the way we're trying to apply the bum's rush is what's convincing people these rumours might be true.
If people actually *read over* the case that's been presented by the rumour mongers, they can easily conclude "Well, that's an unusually tenuos case for one that's so circumstantial." with the same expression I give a homeless man in $140 jeans, new Nike sneakers and a gold watch asking for bus fair so he can get to the hospital when Toronto West General is about 500 meters away.
But when we act like its true, and try to prevent people from actually looking at the evidence and concluding its some lousy, we don't do anyone a service except the rumour mongers.
Cheers WilyD
Fred Bauder wrote:
However prominent Black is, we're dealing with a conspiracy theorist who
deserves the usual bum's rush.
Assuming that he is in fact a conspiracy theorist, it is my understanding that they thrive on controversy and oppositiuon. Is there no equivalent to, "Don't feed the trolls," in conspiracy land? Quietly allow a few strange links to survive for some reasonable time, and the controversy would never get out of hand.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
Since we're talking about linking to the professor's page, not to a page that the professor in turn linked to, I don't see how this is even relevant to the discussion. If the already absurd BADSITES policy (and friends) is going to drive itself off a cliff and now prohibit links to any sites that, through n degrees of link traversal, may *indirectly* reach objectionable material, then we might as well just turn off external links entirely.
-Mark
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Alec Conroy wrote:
There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances.
Setting aside the question of the block for a moment, I'm curious about the incident that triggered the block.
If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically altered" the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her true name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are interesting.
Here's some more garbage from the page the respected professor linked to:
"The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! Previous scandals such the Seigenthaler case, exposing Essjay, and the WikiScanner program by Virgil Griffith, received wide coverage. But there was silence about SlimVirgin, comparable to the silence on classic themes such as UFOs and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
This year such themes have been completely ignored by major media, even when new light is shed on these twentieth-century mysteries. First the famous E. Howard Hunt, who personally participated in many covert operations during the 1950s and 1960s, admitted before he died that the assassination of President Kennedy was organized by U.S. intelligence, in conjunction with the Mafia and top administration officials, headed by Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Several months later a notarized deathbed confession by Walter Haut was published. In 1947 he was the public relations officer at the 509th Bomb Group based in Roswell, New Mexico. First he composed a press release about the crash of a flying disc, and soon followed with a new release about a weather balloon. For the rest of his life he gave evasive explanations of what was really found, but just before he died he dared to tell the truth. In the document he left behind, Walter Haut states that he not only saw the wrecked spacecraft, but also the bodies of aliens recovered from it. They had unusually large heads, and bodies the size of a ten-year-old child. It is clear that the deathbed confessions of people who participated in these extraordinary events deserve serious attention. But the major media ignored both of them.
Moreover, the sensational confession of E. Howard Hunt did not even get any space in Wikipedia's article on the assassination of John F. Kennedy (at least it is mentioned in the article on E. Howard Hunt). The confession of Walter Haut is reflected in the article about the Roswell incident, but it lacks a direct reference to the document published on the web. Thus, the conclusion: for important Wikipedia articles, the content is gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources. It is more or less understandable who is behind this. Everyone must decide for himself or herself whether this is acceptable."
How about them apples...? I've always wondered about that disc business.
Fred
Fred, I must be missing something. How is the fact that most of the link that Black uses is crankery at all relevant?
I think we discussed this topic plenty before, but I did want to post one small follow-up based on some new info.
It appears that this drama was both touched off by and sustained with a variety of sock puppets, now banned. My thanks to Morven for nabbing no less than 19 socks from one operator. From what I can tell, there were two other people with now-banned socks involved in that as well, two claiming to be pro-BADSITES and one opposed.
It's always hard to guess the motives of people like that, but if trolling was their goal, they had a smashing success. Hopefully all involved will feel a little chastened by that. I know I do.
Not that I plan to assume good faith any less: suspicion and distrust are great raw material for trolls. But I'm definitely going to try for more WP:COOL, and more patience with people who see themselves as responding to intolerable provocation.
William
This whole discussion (which has taken place whilst I was off-line, so have just read 50+ messages on the topic) is both frustrating and sadly predictable.
Alec Conroy's message of 17:37UTC (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/084541.html) is a particularly intelligent analysis of the whole BADSITES-related drama we've seen over the last few month. I strongly urge all long-serving admins (and especially ArbCom members) who have strongly advocated one side or other in these discussions to re-read that contribution and see if they see themselves in it -- or, at least, see that others might perceive them as such.
James.