Karajou, Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM:
They kept removing it, saying it wasn't sourced.
Rob Smith, Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:51 PM:
No. Do you have diffs? EmersonWhite most definitely falls under this description
which explains that if a user raises the question with him "Are you a single purpose account" it could have negative repercussions down the road per Assume Good Faith and Civility. So we're supposed to work with him to follow WP guidelines and procedures. I more less caught him arguing out of both sides of his mouth, but you can't take the bait of getting into multiple disputes with everyone.
Gotta stay focused. The WP:DR is with tmt, and later probably SId as well. If me and tmt can reach resolution on some issues, all RW will follow.
Most importantly, we are already seeing some effort in RW to clean up thier act, move away from the mobocracy, and beginning establishing and enforcing community standards.
TK, Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM:
Rob, EmersonWhite’s own user page on
“Is active on LibertarianWiki.com and Rationalwiki.org,
The RW user http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Opcn
has messaged me last night on Google Talk, claiming to be EmersonWhite on
Wikipedia. Since 99% of RW users are Sysops, that would indeed make him,
technically, a RW admin.
Rob Smith, Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM:
He just posted it there recently. Look at his contribs, no wikilawyer has that short of history.
I highly suspect EmersonWhite is User:Will Beback, aka User:Willmcw, and User:User 2004. Will Beback stalked (hounded is now the proper term to use) to Rjensen'sw page and started stalking and hounding Jensen cause obviously Jensen had some edit history with me.
See Encylopedia Dramatica's entry on Will Beback, he 's the inventor od wikistalking.
When Will Beback ran for Arbcom, he boasted I was one of the "problem editors" he had experience dealing with. Incidentally, I voted for him for Admin.
Stick around. It's gonna get interesting.
Karajou, Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:46 PM:
Should RJJensen be involved in this discussion? I think he would find it interesting how a tension between a couple of people in CP could be caused and exploited by a third party.
As to EW on Wikipedia, this could be another example to Jimbo on how certain people get promoted: by raising hate and discontent, by stating false accusations, by back-stabbing, etc.
TK, Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:47 PM:
Jensen is no friend of CP, nor a
conservative. He’s a highly politicized academic.
Karajou, Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:53 PM:
I won't contact him at all without a unanimous decision from all of us.
Rob Smith, Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM:
Jensens should be left alone.
I served notice to Trent yesterday here (with the link to RationalWiki 1.0
) we got the dirt on him & Lipson. Look at tmt comments in the links TK provided yesterday from the old discussion list. It proves RW was founded, with tmt & Lipson engaging in cyber-vandalism ("malicious editing" Stephanie Simon says) BEFORE
their accounts were blocked, unlike what the Stephanie Simon article states.
We have succesfully, at least temporarily, wrestled control of the CP entry away from RW roguew admins. But that does not mean we control it.
Next question is, Are you now, or have you ever been a member of Rationalwiki 1.0?
TK, Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:03 PM:
I would like to see this whole matter move
to the bigger picture, Rob, if possible.
The problem is can anyone, anyone at all,
really edit from a NPOV, if your represent a body dedicated to
destroying/refuting/countering the POV of another wiki? Thinking about the
larger picture, Wikipedia shouldn’t allow editing of controversial articles by
sworn opponents’ of that POV…there is just too much shading the English language
can do in competent hands. Known administrators of Rationalwiki shouldn’t be
allowed to edit the CP article, and likewise we shouldn’t be involved in
editing the RW one either, if Wikipedia wants to take seriously its NPOV rule.
Too much the “assume good faith” dictum conflicts with the NPOV one.
Rob Smith, Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:54 AM:
I'm going to reveal part of my hand right now, so you all are sworn to secrecy.
The Stephanie Simon article, a WP:RS, states Peter Lipson, Trent Toulouse, and others have engaged in "malicious editing." I have proven on a talk page Trent Toulouse has used Wikipedia as a platfrom to launch cyber-vandalism attacks against Conservapedia.
The privacy rights of individuals, namely Trent who is an active Wikipedia editor who nedits under his real life name, must be very, very carefully preserved and respected.
No wonder several neutral Admins have backed away because they may see this is a problem for Arbcom to deal with. No wonder Arbcom may have already sent in a single purpose account investigator.
And we haven't addressed a Conservapedia editor who is also a Wikipedia editor (this would apply to all CP editors with WP accounts) rights who have basically been slandered enmasse by Rationalwiki 1.0 & Rationalwiki 2.0 editors with WP accounts.
Karajou, Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 5:54 AM:
And you know what...
I'm sitting back thoroughly enjoying all of this!
Outstanding work Rob!
Rob Smith, Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:41 PM:
That's a potential violation of WP policy. If he atttempts to "out" you, User:TK-CP as Terry Koekritz anywhere on the wiki, he's toast. Give him room, watch him close, and bait him into it if possible subtley. Then contact me right away with the diff.
You saw Hipocrite's warning to me about "outing" on my talk page,
It appears you are threatening to "out" editors. I strongly suggest you stop doing this, immediately. Any further threats to violate the privacy of contributors here will be met with severe repricussions. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Read what I said,
- Even if you are not concerned now about individual privacy rights and what Wikipedia's policies are to protect them, I must be. nobs (talk
TK, Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:45 PM:
it removed. Now. I posted on PoppaNovembers talk page demanding action and
sanctions. Tasha was identified as herself, with full name. There is a quote
in the article from “Terry Koeckritz” but nowhere is that person identified or
alluded to being me.
since you reverted my edit and declared Brian Macdonald a CP Admin again, could
we see your source? He's not listed in the part of the article that deals with
admins (the "elite group" bit only
seems to cover Terry Koeckritz and Tasha D. Jones before the
articles moves on to things like RW, and Macdonald is mentioned after that), so
evidently interviewed quite a few people, including admins and non-admins, and
the only info we get about Macdonald is that he spent several hours per day in
2007 reverting vandalism. Thats not something only admins do. Everybody did
on CP currently self-identifies as "Brian Macdonald" (googling
for that precise name on CP gives no results, and the same goes for a user
and user_talk search using CP's MediaWiki search), and I honestly don't
know if your word is a good enough source to apply such a label. --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
TK, Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:41 PM:
Yes. And notice how long it took Trent to archive his
page? I doubt he would permit anyone of us to archive that quickly on RatWiki……
Karajou, Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:42 PM:
He's determined to hide stuff, isn't he?
TK, Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:49 PM:
Hear the crickets, Brian?
No one here anymore except you and me…..
Karajou, Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:53 PM:
All I hear is the A/C going... :P
Rob Smith, Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:24 AM:
We are beginning to see progress. Boutros whatever is a single purpose account. My guess, it's a response to the private email I sent raising privacy concerns.
Look at the latest:Papa November has a template marking resolution of an issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Papa_November
We've wrested control of this article from the ratvadals. I need help on content. Let's get User:Conservative involved. Here's his chance to defend his material in WP. It would be best if he would do it through me.
This will take months. When the CP article is done, we move on to Andy, Physllis, Roger, and all CP/related entries.
TK, Sid used the post as an excuse to beginning pasting your name on whatever page posssible. This shows bad faith on his part -- definitely. And they are watching the pattern of conduct. I'm guessing we already have some intervention on privacy but if we see no oversight in the next few hours, I'll show you how to make a formal request.