More-o da Same-o:
QUOTE(Raul654 @ 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC))
The discussion with all of these people tended to focus heavily on the reasons surrounding their initial bans (and highly biased descriptions thereof) while glancing over their numerous misdeeds since. Also (and these would have been good points to put towards Somey) [1] there was one cases on WR where Wikipedia Review ranted at length about one or two socks that were absolutely not his, and that these were clearly good users who had been swept up by overzealous admins. When I checkusered them later, it turned out they were sockpuppets belonging to Jon Awbrey (another banned user/wikipedia review participant) impersonating Wikipedia Review. And while it's conceivable he didn't know and thus wasn't lying, I thikn he was lying and I take anything they say with with a large grain of salt.
Why would that be a good point to "put towards" me? I had nothing to do with that, and I didn't know it was going on. (Not that I would have cared!)
QUOTE
[2] It would have been nice of you to ask Somey about the real-world harassment that Wikipedia Review has spawned.
Except that all the examples he cites happened before I even became a member...
QUOTE
in another case, user:Katefan0 (a very good editor and generally a very nice person) was outed as a worker for Congressional Quarterly, and had to quit because of possible bad-effects on her job.
Never mind the conflict of interest, of course. And she "had to quit"
Wikipedia, not her job. Let's just make that clear.
QUOTE
Of course, I expect Somey would give some idiotic answer along the lines of 'these are the acts of individual Wikipedia review participants and can't be used to judge the whole site', but frankly, WR encourages these acts...
Aren't all my answers idiotic? I thought that was the whole point...
Anyway, I'd probably mention that ALL of those things happened
two years ago before I mentioned the fact that they're the acts of individual Wikipedia review participants and can't be used to judge the whole site. "We" and/or "WR" don't
encourage anything, except to the extent that any web forum encourages people to do whatever it is they do.
And this, from User:Filll:
QUOTE(Filll @ 12:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC))
It was interesting to hear how Moulton is now presenting his "case" to outsiders. Amazing how different it seems to be than the facts, and even statements he himself has made in writing, which can be discovered with a little bit of digging. Anyone interested can look at a little tiny bit of the problem by looking at his RfC, but this barely scratches the surface; I only put as much in his RfC as was necessary to deal with this problem, and did not put in everything I could have. Since others have no particular reason to doubt Moulton or investigate his situation, he can maintain this story to them and get some sort of hearing, but it does not square with reality. However, I would ask the rational person to listen carefully to even what Moulton claims in that interview; the evidence that something is wrong is presented right in the interview if you pay attention.
Classic WP double-talk! Claim your opponent is wrong and doesn't "square with reality" without actually explaining why! Darkly hint that you've got more and/or secret information that you hasn't revealed! Tell everyone that it's "really obvious if you pay attention"!
Yes or no, "Filll" - did you, or did you not, edit-war over articles on people who had signed the ID petition, in order to keep their BLP articles in a state in which the petition appeared to the reader to be the single most important event in their lives?
And as for Filll's little "hypothetical," it's completely diversionary and irrelevant. However, in that case you'd give the person the option of having the article deleted completely, or else work within WP's strict, rigid confines to help shape its content. I think WP'ers would find that the vast majority of article subjects would end up not really objecting to the strict, rigid confines all that much, given the choice -
except for people who are being targeted by WP attack editors like User:Filll, of course! The opt-out policy proposal is designed
specifically for them.