User talk:Salmon of Doubt/Archive 3

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

assume good faith[edit source]

"the assumed goal of this project is to be a method for users banned at Wikipedia to lash out at their tormentors" <-- As far as I know, you are the only one who might be making this assumption. The real reason for the ethics project is to study past problems at Wikipedia and think about how to improve Wikipedia. I find it strange that you want to have this study project destroyed. Your desire to silence this study project might lead people to imagine that you are trying to hide something that happened at Wikipedia, something that too few people know about yet. Just a thought. --JWSchmidt 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Each user brings their own reason for contributing. You can see my reason here. I do not desire to silence this study project, I desire to fix it. I am absolutly, 100% certain that there is at least one other user who is making my assumption. But, let us come clean. Please answer the following two questions, each, with a one word answer (yes/no): Do you believe that Moulton is, in part, using the project to lash out at his tormentors? Do you believe Dzonatas is, in part, using the project to lash out at his tormentors? Salmon of Doubt 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Q1: No. I've talked to Moulton for many hours. I think the "Objectives" section of his user page tells the whole story. Moulton is trying to get people to look objectively at the evidence related to his time at Wikipedia. Q2: sorry, I do not know "Dzonatas" and have not followed the editing being done by User:Dzonatas. --JWSchmidt 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Audacious personal attacks[edit source]

SBJ, I'm not really sure how to deal with this. I find it very difficult to deal with individuals on a congenial basis whilst they maintain pages that go out of their way to mock and derride other contributors. For instance, Moulton has two "songs" on his mu page that are little more than directed insults (or death wishes) against me. He's even linked these from the promotional page for the "movie" that you are attempting to make. There is a page in the movie's hierarcy titled Wikiversity the Movie/SLP which has a picture of a salmon morphing into a whale, attributes to me, I assume the whale of a problem with BLP? Finally, someone has created an unblocked sockpuppet, "Trout of Doubt."

Honestly, I understand that the assumed goal of this project is to be a method for users banned at Wikipedia to lash out at their tormentors, and I can accept that you want that (I'm offended that you're doing it on the foundation's dime, but honestly, I stopped financially contributing a long time ago for other reasons.) However, I'm a content contributor here, and I'm wondering how you'd reccomend that I move forward with all of my nominal "adversaries" spending substantial time and efforts doing little more than trying to harass me. You all wonder why I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name? I think this proves more than adequately the backlast that a previously uninvolved editor would feel for standing up to the status-quo of harassment that is emminating out of this place. Should editors feel safe here, or is it a free for all? Salmon of Doubt 15:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Salmon. I'm not sure how to deal with it either, to be frank. I don't know what the Trout of Doubt is about (this is the first I've heard of it). Here's my impressions in a nutshell: Moulton is a very creative and energetic contributor who clearly got whacked around on Wikipedia. He also probably deserved some slapping around, because he doesn't understand the limits of collegiality. When he and a few other editors arrived on Wikiversity a couple months ago to create a learning resource about the ethical problems of Wikipedia, I was interested in the idea and did my best to give them a month's time to get it together and start something, because I suspected that they had something to teach (and they did, but I won't get into that right now). I was very happy to see you arrive and start contributing, because with Moulton's case in particular I did not feel that I was learning the full context or was recieving an account that was NPOV. When WAS tried to moderate between you two, Moulton asked WAS to leave the project, and that's where he lost me too.
But here's the issue: Wikipedia really does have problems, and in my few years of editing they have only gotten worse. A lot of the cause is of an ethical nature, so the project itself is valid. The sockpuppetry issues are just one aspect of that (on every side), but as far as I'm concerned you (as in you, Salmon of Doubt) shouldn't feel obligated to connect your username here to your username elsewhere, because this is metadiscourse: talking about talking. The "founding clique" of en.wikiversity (me included) were and remain deeply concerned with avoiding the wacky dramas on Wikipedia, and while you guys are, after all, importing your drama to this project, we're trying to remain observers rather than participants, and if we started blocking left and right, we'd lose that perspective.
Not sure where I'm going with all this, except to maybe clarify why I'm not sure how to deal with it either. Please do stick around though... I love Wikipedia, and I want to understand why it has the problems it has. --SB_Johnny talk 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Your answer is "", then? Perhaps I'll start an "Ethical management of the english language Wikiversity" project. Trout of Doubt is a JWSchmidt "learning excersize" (AKA disruptive sockpuppet account that he tried to cover up untill it was obvious that he was going to get checkusered and diciplined.) in which he basically says that my criticism of Moulton is paralel to wanting to imprison Ghandi. Unless someone can come up with a solution to this project engaging in rabid personal attacks and basicaly existing as a revenge platform that doesn't involve "this entire site is doomed, sign in with your SUL account (NEW IP ADDRESS!), start making "valid" contributions, run for stewardship, start blocking left and right," that's what I'll have to do. Salmon of Doubt 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: Contrary to your statement that "we're trying to remain observers rather than participants," JWSchmidt has certainly jumped right in and taken Moulton's side on everything, going as far as to abusively sockpuppet to insult me, oh, and make up songs insulting me. Right, not taking sides at all. Salmon of Doubt 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and start a new project... I'd honestly be interested in what you have to say. JWSchmidt ain't me, but he's certainly not a troll either. Your actions here might be considered trollish though: read what you posted above and think about who you sound like. If you are who I think you are, you're not being your best.
Assuming good faith might be more your speed? :-) --SB_Johnny talk 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Runcorn. I'm not interested in being my best. Salmon of Doubt 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkusered?[edit source]

Based on information and belief (access logs at my computer), I have been checkusered on this project. Have I been checkusered on this project? If so, by whom? For what purpose? To whom was this data released? I will contact the ombudsperson shortly, but you could certainly save everyone a whole bunch of time. Please allow me to remind you (and all the other checkusers at this project) of the Wikimedia privacy policy, located at [1] which states, in part:

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:
  1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement
  2. With permission of the affected user
  3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
  4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
  5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers
  6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above.

Salmon of Doubt 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the logs, and you have not been checkusered. It would have been perfectly legitimate to use the tool given your threat to use 'bot tools in an inappropriate manner though.
Just so's ya know. --SB_Johnny talk 23:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Salmon, you wrote:
This makes no sense to me. Checkuser consists of looking at the server logs on the Wikimedia server. No IP packets are transmitted to your host in that process. What access logs are you looking at on your machine? What kind of packets (i.e. what inet service port) are your log entries associated with, and what IP were they sent from? —Moulton 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
For some reason a system that a checkuser would right-click on ran a reverse-dns on my ip address. Salmon of Doubt 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Dunno about WMF servers, but two of mine do reverse DNS on every IP and store the symbolic name in the Apache logs. It's an option. In any event, that won't send a packet to your host unless your host is also the Domain Name Server for your own domain. That's unlikely unless you own a personal domain name with just one host, and use that host to provide DNS to the Internet. —Moulton 01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"You own a personal domain name." Have you figured out who I am yet? Salmon of Doubt 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have long reddish hair and live near a bay? Moulton 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No comment. Stop fishing, fisherman. Salmon of Doubt 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you resemble this person? —Moulton 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On Darwinism[edit source]

"One of the strongest arguments for insisting that ‘Darwinism’ as it is used today is isomorphic to Darwin's Darwinism, as Gayon puts it, is that each of these questions is still hotly debated, and has been throughout the theory's history. With all of the amazing changes that have been wrought by the genetic, biochemical, and molecular revolutions, with the development of mathematical models of population genetics and ecology, of sophisticated techniques for both field and laboratory investigation of evolutionary processes, and of cladistic analysis in systematics, it nevertheless remains true that one can find evolutionary biologists who adhere to Darwin's Darwinism, and are recognized as doing so by both themselves and their critics. In the next section of this article, I will develop a portrait of contemporary Darwinism around each of these contested features. By the same token, however, Darwinism has evolved. As one example of this truth, think for a moment of contemporary debates about the nature of selection. The problems people had with natural selection in the 19th century continue to be problematic, but there are a variety of problems that were either not discussed, or discussed very differently, in the 19th century. Can, and does, natural selection work at levels other than the level of Darwin's focus, individual organisms; is there a non-vacuous way to formulate the theory abstractly; how are we to understand the relationships between the concepts of fitness, selection and adaptation? How strong are the constraints on the selection process, and what sorts of constraints are there? Are there other motors of evolutionary change besides selection, and if so, how important are they? In particular, how important is ‘drift’, and how are we to differentiate it from selection?" [2]

Darwinism is not Evolutionism. It refers to a specific thing. People who use the term do not indicate that they are necessarily creationists any more than if someone uses the word "liberal" they are necessarily Republican. The rest of the article I quoted is also quite good. Perhaps you would like to read it. Learning new things is always a good thing. WAS 4.250 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You've fallen afoul of the "polemics" vs "science" problem again. You are a scientist who is being abused by polemicists. Perhaps Picard is also. An easy way for her to solve that would be to issue a statement like James Tour did. (From enwps article on Darwinism - "In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term." Salmon of Doubt 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Note use of the phrase "non-Darwinian evolutionary biologists" later in the article referring to post Darwinian evolutionary models that are scientific and neither creationism nor intelligent design (a term that is simply creationism in disguise). It is a legitimate term used by scientists and philosophers to distinguish ideas based on Darwin's ideas and other later ideas. It is indeed also a term used and abused by creationists, but then, what can one expect from people that ignorant? WAS 4.250 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From that same article here is a scientist contrasting the Darwin model with the concept of random drift: "In Darwin's scheme of things, recall, chance events and natural selection were consecutive rather than alternative stages of the evolutionary process. There was no question as to which was more important at a particular stage. But now that we have the concept of random drift taking over where random variation leaves off, we are faced with just such a question. That is, given chance variations, are further changes in the frequencies of those variations more a matter of chance or more a matter of natural selection? (Beatty 1984, 196)" WAS 4.250 00:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir here. That's not how the phrase is being used in the petition, however. If someone were using my signature in a petition to support something that I don't believe, I'd take my name off it. If they didn't let me take my name off it, I'd sue, or issue a public statement that I didn't agree with it. I wouldn't send my proxy to Wikipedia to disrupt it by trying to whitewash the fact that I signed the petition. That's because I'm sane. I grant the same level of sanity to Rosalind Picard. Are you saying Rosalind Picard is insane? Salmon of Doubt 00:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that there appears to be something funny going on. Someone using their real name needs to talk to her and figure out what is going on. But the problem at Wikipedia is much larger than this one article. I'm hoping an increase in ethical awareness will be helpful. WAS 4.250 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled onto the problem on August 21 of 2007 when I looked at the Picard BLP. In her case I knew from firsthand knowledge the article was wrong. But then I zoomed out and looked at others, like James Tour, David Berlinski, and other articles controlled by the ID editors. I could see they were wrong too, for the same reason the Picard BLP was wrong. Tour, Berlinski, Salthe, Skell, and Davidson were among the first names of signers whom I had never heard of before, and I could see they were neither anti-evolution nor pro-ID. The problem was obviously much wider than just one BLP of one academic. It's like you look out the window and see a little bush on fire at the end of the driveway. Then you look up and see it's a major forest fire. The little bush at the end of the driveway is not the fire to put out. —Moulton 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Your behavior makes sense to me. It is her behavior that has the appearance of not adding up. I'm sure it is something that will not be a problem; but due diligence and ethics demand that we at least talk to her and see if in her opinion things are what we are portraying them as or not. WAS 4.250 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you perplexed that she has spent very little time trying to fix the problems on her BLP or on WP? —Moulton 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
So much time when to solve it would take very little time. Here are some easy solutions.
  1. Post a statement on her web page about it.
  2. Register an account with her MIT email address. Confirm her ID. Make the change
  3. Send an email to OTRS. When/if she does you can have her post the ticket number and I'll have someone check it. Salmon of Doubt 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
How will that fix the systemic problems on the English Language Wikipedia? —Moulton 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
There's no systematic problems. Biographies where no one but disruptive users have problems with them retain their problem. Biographies where the subject has a problem with them get fixed. People who don't know about wikipedia don't know they should be angry about their bio. Where's the problem? Salmon of Doubt 01:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you in denial? See the next section. —Moulton 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On Denial[edit source]

See The BLP Problem, according to Doc glasgow. —Moulton 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of QQbears on that page. Do we vote on facts? There's no BLP problem. The problem is disruptive trolls pretending there is a BLP problem and then whining when the fix involves blocking the fuck out of everyone, including them. Salmon of Doubt 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Different people have different views on the matter. For example Jimbo agrees that we have a BLP problem; but like me also thinks Wikipedia mostly works pretty good and that major changes are not justified. I think automatically semi-protecting all BLPs and increasing ethical awareness at Wikipedia is justifiable, but I'm not sure more extreme measures are. WAS 4.250 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm with WAS on this. Not that anyone asked… The Jade Knight 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

block[edit source]

"It is imperitive that you, as the only currently active custodian, block User:Daniel Brandt‎ immediately."

Reason for the block? --JWSchmidt 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt is a well known critic of Wikipedia (and Google and a bunch of other things). He does not vandalize articles with pictures of penises, nor engage in offensive edit summaries. You can take it on my say-so that this impostor must be blocked immediately. Salmon of Doubt 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me about the vandal. I was editing a page and not watching recent changes. Another good way to reach me is to use the Wikiversity IRC chat channel. I've been thinking it would be nice to chat with you about Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

reverts[edit source]

If you revert another editor, you have to provide an edit summary that explains the revert. See Wikiversity:Rollback. --JWSchmidt 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of bad behavior by the ID interest group[edit source]

Evidence of bad behavior by the ID interest group This is in fact typical. See the FM part of w:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence also. WAS 4.250 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalk?[edit source]

Is there a rule here against following other contributors around the project with the intent to annoy and harass? Salmon of Doubt 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, let me try it this way. Stop Moulton from following me around the project now. Salmon of Doubt 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey listen: I'm really busy, and I have no idea who is stalking whom. I went out on a limb last week to make sure you had time and mental space to edit, and you disappeared. Sorry, but you need to ask someone else. --SB_Johnny talk 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

IRC chat[edit source]

Based on discussion in IRC today, I now suspect that your major "beef" with Moulton relates to his "hobby" of collecting information on his website. Based on this I had previously made a different assumption. I think everyone has been uniform in telling Moulton that Wikiversity is not the place for discussion of his efforts to collect and collate information that allows links to be made between wiki users and real world people. I thank you for your help in creating discussion of the idea that #Wikiversity-en is not the place for discussion of the real world identities of wiki editors. I hope the discussed prohibition on such chat in the IRC channel sticks. Yes, I'm a wimp, and I only kick/block vandals, sorry about does tend to mean that we end up having rather long discussions and not quick kicks. I've asked Moulton why he collects such information and I still do not completely understand, but here is my best guess: when Moulton sees behavior in an online community that he feels is damaging to people, he tries to step in and set things right. This has involved him in a series of online fights over a period of years and he seems to have adopted some of the available information collection tools that are useful for fighting such fights. So my understanding is that we have this situation: Wikipedia had some biased BLPs, Moulton showed up and tried to fix them, a team of editors thought they "owned" the biased BLPs and they resisted corrections to the BLPs, there was edit waring and Moulton got run off of Wikipedia. I'm still fuzzy about the next steps after that point since that is as far as my research has gone into the middle of the story. My understanding of events continues in the current time frame when I found Moulton here at Wikiversity working on the Wikipedia ethics project. When I went over to look at the situation at Wikipedia, I found that the problem Moulton discovered at the Picard article still lingers, although there has been progress in cleaning up that article. The Picard BLP and FeloniousMonk are both mentioned in an ArbCom case that might be settled soon and hopefully that will help further improve the situation at Wikipedia articles in the evolution/ID subject area. I don't think it is useful to try to repeat the "badsites" battles here at Wikiversity. If you object to something at Moulton's website, I think it would be best to take that up with him in a forum off Wikiversity. I'm glad you are participating in the Wikiversity IRC channel...I feel like that kind of forum can often facilitate understanding at a faster rate than wiki editing. --JWSchmidt 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See Perspective: The Aim of the Game. —Moulton 11:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton collects that information so that he can harass people who disagree with expressing religious views as science who work in Corporate America such that they stop preventing him from his goal of supporting religious views as science. Salmon of Doubt 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Moulton just enjoys tilting at windmills. WAS 4.250 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's true. I've been tilting at intractable ethical conundrums since I was a teenager. What I appreciate about Salmon of Doubt is that he brings to Wikiversity, to the Ethics Project, and to me an endless supply of intractable ethical conundrums. I am blessed to have him as an ambassador who is here under contract from the ethically challenged (and endlessly challenging) editors of IDCab, to participate in this reprise of Bela's classic Soap Opera, Bildungsroman in the Age of Character Assassination. —Moulton 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Picard[edit source]

I looked at the various things on Picard and I found all approaches unsatisfactory. I believe that individuals, instead of the underlying complaints, were focused on. I created this. Could you, if you want, post a response like the others, but I ask that no one responds to each other's response. This is to talk about the main ideas and to answer the questions posited. If you have complaints about my wording choice, please feel free to do so. However, I ask that we don't bring in user's names, and focus on the bigger picture so we can deal with the underlying philosophy. Also, if you have a complaint about other users, you can feel free to contact me directly and we can talk about it. However, I would prefer it if you did not fight with those users directly. I don't believe it is helpful to anyone, and could actually hurt people. Thanks. Ottava Rima 16:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Loaded presentation from word one to the last. I'm done wasting time engaging with Moulton's friends, sorry. Salmon of Doubt 16:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that, but I am not Moulton's friend, nor do I know anything really about him. I have even stated that people who believe in intelligent design have a black mark, which means that I do not support those with such a view, so you cannot say that I am loaded against you. If you want to act that way, then I can only assume that you don't want to actually talk about this idea, which I find troubling, and makes me regret even inviting you. Ottava Rima 16:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I can say that your presentation of this dispute is loaded from word one. You operate under the assumption that users who added the note that she signed the petition were intending to tar her with a black mark. I operate under the assumption (OF GOOD FAITH?) that they were intending to note that she signed a petition that she signed. You operate under the assumption (OF BAD FAITH?) that she doesn't like having the sentence in the article but is too stupid or ignorant to tell anyone but prolific internet troll Barry Kort that she'd like it removed or clarified. All Picard needs to do to have the sentence removed or clarified is to either post about it on her hompage (which she actively posts on about all kinds of things, including her fundamentalist, evangelical religious beliefs), or contact OTRS. Her, not her proxy, the banned user Moulton, who may or may not be acting in her name. You never look to the altnerate explanation for why people might want the sentence included (other than "In order to ensure that Intelligent Design is appropriately "blackmarked""). Perhaps they just wanted to note who signed a peition? Salmon of Doubt 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide the evidence and reasoning to support your theory of mind regarding Ottava Rima's assumptions? —Moulton 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I realized I missed a bit. Could an alternative explanation be that Picard is actually a strong supporter of Intelligent Design who sent prolific internet troll Barry Kort to waste the time of people who try to make it such that wikipedia the encyclopedia dosen't express religious views of science, such that supporters of religious views expressed as science could convince well meaning people like you and JWS to campaign for the inclusion of religious views expressed as science in the encyclopedia? Salmon of Doubt 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Could an alternative explanation be that IDCab is actually enthralled with Intelligent Design? Is it possible IDCab sent prolific internet Uber-Troll, Salmon of Doubt, to waste the time of people who try to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't defame living people in academia, such that supporters of academic excellence would become bamboozled into disbelieving the hypothesized canard that actors like Salmon of Doubt campaign for the inclusion of religious views expressed as lampoonable pseudo-science in the encyclopedia? —Gastrin Bombesin 16:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence, analysis, or reasoning to support that novel theory? Do you have any evidence or analysis to refute that theory? —Moulton 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
There was recently this learning resource started: Campaign for the inclusion in Wikipedia of religious views expressed as science, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added to that project a few items that convert some theological ideas into modern science. —Moulton 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If they didn't want to "tar her", why mention it? Do you think that ID is a positive thing? I don't. I can give you a long list of names of people who don't think being labeled as part of ID as a good thing. Ottava Rima 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is Rosalind Picard on that list? Why or why not? Salmon of Doubt 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Are 24 names (including Picard, Tour, and 22 others) on this list? Why? What evidence does IDCab offer to support the claim that those 24 indivduals are accurately characterized as "some of the individuals who have signed the w:Discovery Institute's pro-w:intelligent design/anti-w:evolution statement, w:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Have those long-published claims of the IDCab editors been subjected to scientific and journalistic peer review for accuracy and ethics? —Moulton 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to answer my questions? I don't think ID is a positive thing. However, you seem to suggest that you do. Why do you think Intelligent Design is a good thing and something people should be proud of being associated with? Ottava Rima 16:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Should encyclopedias list only things that people are proud of, or everything notable they do? Is Picard proud of her signature of the petition, or not? Is her signature of the petition, discussed in a New York Times article, notable, or not? Salmon of Doubt 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we say that Hitler was an evil racist bastard? No. Thats not encyclopedic. We put forth facts and let other people judge. Trying to vaguely connect her to Intelligent Design is the same as calling her a heretic, a racist, an unbeliever, and every other slur. Its a term used in order to bad mouth people. I am really afraid that you believe that Intelligent Design is something to be proud of an a great term to label people with. I don't understand why you support Intelligent Design, nor why you believe in it. I find that extremely troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we say that Hitler was a Nazi? Yes. That is encyclopedic. We put forth facts and let other people judge. Trying to remove the fact that the New York Times wrote and article that stated she signed a petition is the same as not calling Hitler a Nazi or that he masterminded the extermination of millions of jews, or any other fact. It is a fact used to be fully informative. I am really afraid that you believe that signing a petition is something to be covered up. I don't understand why you support Intelligent Design, nor why you believe in it. I find that extremely troubling to say the least. Salmon of Doubt 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we say non card carrying members of the NAZI organization who may have had one or two news papers claim such but with them deny such list it on their pages? No. Being an Nazi is an evil thing. Even if you support Intelligent Design, I will not stand for it. I do not think it is your right to promote your belief by trying to rationalize it and make it seem main stream. I think it is wrong that you label people who are not related to the group as members of the group to pump up your numbers. I think it is directly against the spirit of Wikipedia. This is not to promote your views, and I think it is sad that you have to deface and black mark scientists to try and make it seem like there are more supporters of your cause then there really are. Yes, this is the equivalent of a neo-Nazi going around putting Nazi proudly on non-Nazi pages. It sickens me deeply. Ottava Rima 19:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Picard has not denied anything to anyone ever. I don't support intelligent design. That you honestly think I do demonstrates how out of touch with the facts on the ground you are. Salmon of Doubt 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence or reasoning to support your curious theory of mind regarding what Ottava Rima honestly thinks? —Moulton 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line on all this is that it is a judgment call whether it is notable or not enough to place the fact of signing that petition on those BLPs. I think not notable, but I have not looked deeply into it. One side believes that ID and the New York Times are both notability-making factors. The other side thinks that being mentioned in passing in one NYT article and the fact that what was signed did not include the words "intelligent design" means it is not notable. We solve judgment issues like this at Wikipedia by !votes. But what happens when those who would !vote "No" are systematically blocked/banned? And is that what has happened? Hmmmm. Sounds like a case for the Ethics files!!!! WAS 4.250 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

People who vote no are not systematically blocked/banned. Are you blocked? Is Ottava? People who disrupt the encyclopedia are systematically blocked/banned. That they happen to be stealth creationist concern trolls is a side benefit. Show me a blocked individual who contributed to the encyclopedia. Salmon of Doubt 06:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That's good to know. As I said, I had not looked deeply into it and did not know. WAS 4.250 07:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:SodBot[edit source]

Hi Salmon, great that you are using a bot (User:SodBot) to participate here. For what learning purpose you want to use it here ? Before using you might wanna look at: Wikiversity:Bots:

Summary [edit]
Simply put, a bot is something that can do repetitive tasks in a predictable fashion, and it can be done in such a way as to be healthy for the community.
Expectations [edit]
The operation of a bot requires approval. Any user can submit a request at Wikiversity:Bots/Status to obtain bot status, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I intend to use SodBot to remove links to malicious sites from selected pages and possibly to perform other repetitive predictable tasks, including, but not limited to, automated signature generation on talk pages and other general maintence. Since I cannot currently provide working code for anything but an auto-reverter, none of it's tasks are currently live. Salmon of Doubt 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want to deal with "links to malicious sites" you need to define what you mean by "malicious sites". --JWSchmidt 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Or I can just run the bot on pages I maintain. Salmon of Doubt 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Bots need a pre-defined function, described and approved by the community. If you are not interested in explaining what your bot will do, you will not be allowed to use it. --JWSchmidt 19:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Since it's not doing anything just yet, that's none of your concern. Salmon of Doubt 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Bots are always a concern to site administrators/custodians/whatever. All bots should pre-declare their purpose. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
And it certainly will, when I've finished testing it in my userspace. Are you supposed to be impartial or yet another rider on the bandwagon? Salmon of Doubt 12:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)