conservaleaks

2010-03-27 ZB2 More good stats
2010-03-28 ZB2 Damocles
2010-03-29 ZB2 Update on WP dispute
2010-03-29 ZB2 Newton has a username at rationalwiki. Beware
2010-03-29 ZB2 The blog of Ames G., Submitted to a Candid World is worth $38. Conservapedia was valued at $81,560

Update on WP dispute

Rob Smith, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM:

User:Kels at RW just posted this at RW. She appears to  be reading the situation correct and is advising the rest of the RW community.   http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Human&diff=prev&oldid=553959    

TK, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:05 AM:

Maybe you meant just the opposite?  That link takes me to a Kelsi post where she says your activities are BS, and you are not lucid.  That doesn’t seem to me to be reading the situation correctly, Rob.

 

--TK

 

Rob Smith, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:43 AM:

They think I've been  slapped down. I've followed proscribed processes for users with a declared COI and seeking Dispute Resolution. But she's read the part correct, all references to Peter Lipson & RW in WP's Conservapedia should not be there. Once this is excised, I can get the Lenski crap out, too. RW vandals admitted to being the source of "brusque and offensive" comments.  Further  -- RW editors put it into the CP entry to  begin with. Further -- RW edits (from Trent & Sid on down) have controlled the CP entry since it was created.   Further -- Peter Lipson, founder of RW, called  CP "fascist;" if Lispon's not the founder, Trent called CP a "racist propaganda sewer", IN WIKIPEDIA.   This has all the makings a  big Arbcom case with perhaps dozens of editors, some WP admins, named as respondents -- if it gets that far.   The focus now is on setting up a private Mediation with Trent overseen by a neutral WP volunteer. There, I need to convince him he needs to moderate RW's content and assert some control of RW trolls. If he's the founder of RW, I got him by the nuts based on RW's history. Trent, Sid, and other longtime RW editors want the RW entry in WP deleted -- they want coverup of their actions, motives, and people involved.   There in a panic over there at the Saloon bar. Kels sees what's going on, Human is scared to death, Sid still doesn't understand the issue is user conduct, not content & sourcing in WP. And I'm waiting for Trent's response.

TK, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:34 AM:

They also seem to go to great lengths to protect Ames as well.  He wants no public association with anything other than his personal blog it seems.  He was among the original Founders of RW.

 

--TK

 

Rob Smith, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:50 AM:

Right. I'm focusing on RW users activer in WP, or at ,least active in WP's CP and/or RW entries. WP policies state off-wiki harassment can be considered in banning users. WP policies also state an institution, not just a person, can be defamed. So Lipson called me a facist, but he, according to them, is not RW's founder. Trent (according to a user subpage) is a very influentual mastermind, probably it's webhost and webmaster, and certaqinly among its founders. Trent shaped WP's CP entry. Trent called CP, on a WP talk page, "a racist propaganda sewer," which is defamatory of an institution, fellow Wikipedians, and a personal attack.   "RationalWiki's owners" according to Tony Sidaway, a respected WP cabalist, have some problems. Especially since we can document thier user conduct in Wikipedia.

Karajou, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:00 AM:

If it still exists, look at my user talk page in Wikipedia; there they engaged in a personal attack against me, which was joined in by an admin who declared that it was me - and not the RW trolls - who created that page in the first place as a "soap box".

Rob Smith, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:27 AM:

Same name?   It might help to become somewhat active outside these disputes, just so you look currently active. If & when it goes before Arbcom, you could make a statement, and it would look like coming from a currently activeuser, not just somebody with an old score top settle.   Also, anyone who can help to vote '''Delete and/or Redirect''' on the RW entry, please do so. They want it deleted, and so do we. We agree o n this, they are non-notable. Let's keep it that way.  Here's the link.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RationalWiki   Anyone know who Susan is in RW?

Geoffrey Plourde, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:30 AM:

Trent's the host, because the webserver is in his living room. it traces to the city he lives in. 

TK, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:37 AM:

Yes.  She was also Tea and Toast or something but recently came back as SusanG, and left again

 

Karajou, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:02 AM:

At the moment, I'm going to let that talk page - under "Karajou" - speak for itself.  And it wasn't just an attack against me, it was an attack on Ed Poor; the RW trolls didn't want him being promoted to sysop there, based on what the "experienced" in Conservapedia.

In a nutshell, they can't stand it when someone enforces the rules. 

Rob Smith, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:58 AM:

I'm working on a WP:MEDCAB filing right now. This will get the basic nasty issues out in front of Wikipedia insiders. The Mediation Cabal is "informal mediation," meaning it dead ends if (1) a volunteer won't take the case and (b) Trent & Sid reject it. If that happens, then I move to formal mediation.   The problem in not moving directly to formal mediation is, you're supposed to do RfC's (Requests for Comment) on users or articles first, then formal mediation. When RfC's against users are filed, retaliation happens and you get the gangbang effect. So I'm going informal, with a particularly loaded case that many can see ultimately is headed to Arbitration. The trick here is to get neutral insiders familiar with the case, personalities involved, etc.   This case is so big, I can't imagine a mediator not wanting it. The Mediators all want to run for Arbcom someday and resolving a particulalry difficult case looks good on their record. My advantage is, Sid & Trent have no experience in this process, and it truelly is wrenching. Once mediation breaks down, we have plenty of evidence of bad faith and move toward Arbitration.

TK, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:35 PM:

I have suggested on Wikipedia that the Rationalwiki article be deleted, without redirect.

 

Trent responded, in effect that the RW article needed to be redirected because the CP article uses the Times article to name it.

 

I responded back that I thought any direct mention of Ratwiki be removed from the Conservapedia article altogether, because RW isn’t notable whatsoever.  This alleviates the supposed need to redirect the RW article to CP’s, and would still keep the link to the L.A. Times article there, where readers will see it named a vandal site.

 

--TK

 

Rob Smith, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:54 PM:

The aim is to get consensus. We can alter CP's entry later to whatever, right now we all, us, Sid & Trent and others want it deleted. Otherwise this things drags on, and we don 't know when we'll get another chance to delete it.

Geoffrey Plourde, Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM:

And MEDCOM (formal mediation) will reject the case if Trent or Sid disagree, which used to lead to an automatic Arbitration referral.

Rob Smith, Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:44 AM:

Ok, thank you.  Are you sure on that? That's usually the case with formal mediation if the parties continue disputing openly. But Arbcom requires confirmation all steps have been taken, meaning Requests for Comment.  Then it becomes a race to RfC board to file first, and who has more friends.

Rob Smith, Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:12 PM:

Sids got problems. From the WP:COI Noticeboard where neurtral 3rd party observation was requested, per WP:Dispute Resolution policy:

So a good faith offer to resolve disputes was rejected and with incivility.

Let's pile it on. It may take months to get to ArbCom, but I want to be fully loaded. Everyone, at your liesure, please place on this thread examples of your favorite diffs of outrageous conduct of Tmtlouslouse & Sid with a brief description. Here's the beauty, it doesn't have to come from WP, it can come from RW or CP. Arbcom may consider off-wiki evidence in cases of harassment.   I'm working on the Request for Informal Mediation filing now. A RfArb will eventually be shaped by this Mediation filing.

Geoffrey Plourde, Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:20 PM:

Rob,   You can also look into RW users history at other Wikimedia projects. Cross wiki disruption can be grounds for disciplinary sanctions that apply on all Wikimedia projects. 

Karajou, Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:22 AM:

I read the posts by Sid and Trent, and they are going to write as though they are the victims; they will write in a reasonable, almost-professional fashion.  The ploy is to get Wikipedia admins to take their side.

Keep that in mind.

Rob Smith, Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:09 AM:

This is how the process works. Sid is being briefed. Trent seems to have some experience.  But Sid is a loose canon and the evidence is very damning. Ultimately the question is what's in WP's best interest. This may never make it to ArbCom -- but Trent & Sid, and Human and Kels and the lot of them -- all will learn to ton e ikt down and moderate thier actions on wiki and off. Because they can -- and will -- be held to account.   On another subject, the RW entry at WP may survive RfD (Request for Deletion).  There are few WP:Reliable Sources that can be used other than  the ''LA TImes''.  And the LA TImes article is soon the adjudicated by consensus opinion as lacking factual accuracy. That leaves only RW as a source about itself.  Here's what we can do:   We need to get a source which will pass WP:RS to publish an investigation of its history & activities. Here's three possibilities, The Eagle Forum, The Examiner, and Concerned Women for America.    Can anyone speak with a writer there to who may be willing to work on something like this?

Karajou, Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:11 AM:

Perhaps something could be done to get that loose cannon to fire?

Provoke Sid in such a way that he reveals his true colors for all to see in Wikipedia.

TK, Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:40 AM:

It would help lots, Rob, if you could give more direction on what we should be contesting, individually on WP, and what not.  Every time I post I am hesitant, for fear of stepping on your toes, or screwing something up!

 

--Terry

Karajou, Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:10 AM:

Here's something else to consider:

Repeated mention is made of the LA Times article by Stephanie Simon, but only centered around PalMD; no mention is made of the admission in that article of "cyber vandalism".  This goes back to the letter sent to Simon by RW troll Flippin, which is still posted within their website.

On my user talk page in Wikipedia Trent dismisses that allegation as "hyperbole".

TK, Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:37 AM:

I think it was Rob who speculated that Flippin is now going by Mei over there at RW….

 

--Terry

 

Rob Smith, Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:03 AM:

Wikipedia process are slow and cumbersome. Unlike a small wiki like CP or RW, decision aren't  made  quickly. Before we proceed to discussion at talk/Conservapedia, we must work the RfD/RationalWiki to consensus.  That means getting an 80% concensus to Redirect (the same as "deleting" the article). Here's the breakdown now
http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FRationalWiki   We need Geoff & TK-CP to convert their votes to ''Redirect''. Voting with Sid & tmt shows a willingness to cooperate & solve disputes -- a big plus. Then I can work on the other Delete votes to realize Redirect = Delete. This gains brownie points and recognition as an editor who solves problems, builds consensus, gets people to get along, not disruptive, an asset to the project, etc etc.  (Then I go after the Keep votes to pursuade them it's non-notable etc; most of these neutral participants don't have a clue about underlying issues. Someone has to show leadership on the page to build consensus. When that's done, I carry that momentum with the respect gained from neutral voices to talk/Conservapedia).   So let's focus on one thing at a time. Don't be afraid to vote with someone you disagree with; it makes you look good, informed, reasonable, acting in good faith, etc. An d it will kill the RW entry as non-notable.   I'll cut Trent off at the knees at talk/Conservapedia when we get there.

TK, Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:01 AM:

Should an edit note or posting, by either Geo or I note the reason we are changing, if we do?  “In the interests of building a consensus, I have decided there is merit in some of what TMT, Nobs and Sid have said here, and am changing my vote”  Something like that?

 

--TK

 

Rob Smith, Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:57 AM:

Something like "consensus to redirect" in the edit summary; neutral voters may feel pressure to switch when they see die-hard opponents resolving differences. Maybe post a comment like. "Ok, Redirect is virtually the same as Delete. This is will work."   Don't forget to overwrite your Boldened vote with the change.

TK, Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:15 AM:

It has been locked and archived by some Admin, Rob.  I requested on his page it be re-opened, but Trent posted on my talk page that such motions are only open for a week.

 

Rob Smith, Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:39 AM:

Well, Trent has gained a degree of notability now as owner and founder of a notable vandal cite, by Wikipedia standards.

Rob Smith, Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:15 AM:

Good news! Trent is edit warring with WP Admins at WP/CO entry and has been warned he may be block.   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&action=historysubmit&diff=354266297&oldid=354236952   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conservapedia#Removal_.2B_Threat

I warned ratvandals 2 days ago all misrepresentations of underlying sources must be removed now as evidence of good faith.  Lots of anonymous editing activity today.

TK, Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:02 AM:

Isn’t there a method there to close certain controversial articles to anonymous editing?

 

TK, Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:24 AM:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/rationalwiki-copyright-infringement/

 

Read down….Trent posts there, saying he is the owner of RW, and hosts the server in his own home.

 

Rob Smith, Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:51 PM:

We would have to ask for page protect, but I (personally) am not ready to do a major overhaul of the article yet. Plus I have a declared COI, so I'm somewhat restricted.   Right now, I'm simply establishing there is a long running dispute between groups of WP editors; Trent & me probably are in the best position to discuss some resolution to the dispute; I'm asking for third party observation of these discussions which now are centered on the talk/Conservapedia page.   What  I'm attempting to establish with neutral observers is, the dispute goes beyond interpreting a few single citations within the article. I intend to expose the fact that RW founders, and the vandals they have recruited over three years, have come from RW founders cyber-vandalism within the Wikipedia project. The fact they have molded and controlled the CP entry (and Andy's, and Phyllis's) and have used WP's server in violation of BLP, NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:BATTLE, etc.   But I walk a fine line hear. They keep shouting that I'm trolling by not proposing alternative language to a specific cite which is highly controversial. Meanwhile I'm establishing a paper trail of incivility directed at me. Sooner or later Mediatiors, who are overburdened, will on  their own or at the request of higher ups, appoint a Mediator once a formal request is made.

Rob Smith, Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:54 AM:

Number of watchers on talk:Conservapedia http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Talk:Conservapedia   Page views on talk:Conservapedeia when dispute began http://stats.grok.se/en/201003/Talk%3AConservapedia   Page this month (April) http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Talk%3AConservapedia   Page views on Conservapedia entry for March http://stats.grok.se/en/201003/Conservapedia   Page views for April http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Conservapedia

Rob Smith, Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:58 AM:


TK, Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:22 AM:

This was blank, Rob

 

Rob Smith, Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:48 AM:

Number of watchers on talk:Conservapedia http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Talk:Conservapedia
 
Page views on talk:Conservapedeia when dispute began
http://stats.grok.se/en/201003/Talk%3AConservapedia
 
Page this month (April)
http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Talk%3AConservapedia
 
Page views on Conservapedia entry for March
http://stats.grok.se/en/201003/Conservapedia
 
Page views for April
http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Conservapedia

Rob Smith, Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:34 AM:

So the latest discussion has been Archived from the ANI Noticeboard (less than 24 hours after the last comment; a few minutes ago the page template said discussion are automatically archived after 48 hours of inactivity on a thread, now it reads 24 hours. Either way, it was less than 24 hours. So it appears there's an effort to remove some of the embarrassing stuff about RW and move forward.

This discussion did not go well for ratvandals. I was suppose to answer 36 charges of violations, but successfully put the onus on my accusers. The concluding comments of that discussion will live on in wiki lore as a textbook classic exchange how to answer your accusers on bogus, trumped up trash where your supposed to be intimidated and implicate and impugn yourself.

 

One more for the list: "The issue ultimately surrounds an active hoax perpetrated by the founders of Rationalwiki against a mainstream journalist who now is being cited as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article." --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not the first time; here one says it was done for the press [115] and another admits he waterboarded a friend for publicity. [116] nobs (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this vitriol really going to be allowed to continue? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobs, I was hoping that this process would be a wake-up call for you. Unfortunately you appear to have missed the point about the entire above post. So I will spell it out. You actions, as noted above (and presumably driven by a COI), have crossed a line. Wikipedia is not, and I will repeat that, not your personal vehicle for launching damaging, and potentially defamatory, accusations and attacks against other editors, living people and organisations. If you want to do this, find somewhere that will allow you to do this. Wikipedia is not that place.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother. Point made, point taken. God bless you. nobs (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Karajou, Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:30 AM:

And this SakuraNoSerai guy?  What business does he have with this?  His name redirects here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Stunteddwarf&action=history) to Stunteddwarf, and his history is no older than the end of January.   I suspect he is a meatpuppet of someone else.

Rob Smith, Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:31 AM:

He's an RW user, says so on his User page. Not sure who, but definitely has more experience in WP:DR than tmt or Sid, and can advise them on steps to proceed. However that doesn't alwasy (or usually work). Tmt & Sid ultimatley have to speak for themselves.   My guess, Stunteddwarf/Sakurawhatevern is a sock or WP Admin Hipocrite (who alread said he's preparing an arbcom case against me). So who is Hipocrite in RW?
2010-03-27 ZB2 More good stats
2010-03-28 ZB2 Damocles
2010-03-29 ZB2 Update on WP dispute
2010-03-29 ZB2 Newton has a username at rationalwiki. Beware
2010-03-29 ZB2 The blog of Ames G., Submitted to a Candid World is worth $38. Conservapedia was valued at $81,560

Last updated 12 Apr 2011