http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...personal_attack

Is it possible for anyone to start a discussion involving any one of the Intelligent Design Article Owners' Club, without having the whole gang show up to swarm under and consume anyone who disagrees? It looks the whole gang showed up for a rumble in relation to a minor complaint about Guettarda. I see Filll, Odd nature, Jim62sch, and dave souza. The only thing missing is Felonious Monk throwing around blocks and protections and otherwise abusing admin tools (possibly because he's currently under scrutiny?)

No

At least OrangeMarlin is staying out of it. KillerChihuahua makes the occasional cameo.

Nope. According to a journalist formerly with the Salt Lake Tribune, they're a gang.

Funny how that mess started with a very simple request: prove or retract the lie. My best guess is that Guettarda thought he'd be able to put me on the defensive, much as the group had with Cla68 recently. I imagine I surprised him by reacting strongly, as I usually am not the type to do so, but he'd crossed the line by accusing me of something I would not advocate.

The interesting part is that, early on, Filll admitted he'd read nothing like what Guettarda accused me of posting, and Jim62sch's request for a link was completely ignored.

Overall, I can't say I'm too surprised at the way things turned out, though, as others have said, I'm a little surprised I didn't get a block warning from one of Guettarda's friends at some point. I guess they realized they didn't want to draw too much attention to the case. I still think Guettarda's credibility has probably taken a hit, particularly through the way he's handled it. I don't plan on bringing it up on-site again in the future, unless absolutely necessary, though.

I am a little annoyed at the way some uninvolved editors didn't seem to understand why I wasn't satisfied with it being blanked but not retracted, but they probably just haven't dealt with that group enough to realize that I wasn't dealing with a single editor. I know if that lie isn't fought, it will keep coming back in every dispute I might get into with them. As it stands, they will hopefully know better than to make any direct reference to it.

So basically, it was a stalemate. Guettarda deleted the assertion(s) to which Sxeptomaniac took exception, but Guettarda reluctantly deleted his earlier remarks without conceding that his announced beliefs may have been objectively false or mistaken, and there is no way to independently determine the ground truth, because Guettarda did not disclose what off-site remark he had in mind in the first place.

One theory is that he had no offsite remark in mind at all, and was just floating a flight of fancy. But there is no way to prove such a novel theory of mind, as there is no evidence at hand, either way. Thus observers are free to believe what they like, as a matter of personal faith in whoever they prefer to put their faith and confidence in.

Is that about right?

At least you got a blanking. Others in their group make the most horrible accusations and blatant smear tactics, and they go by without any comment at all.

Are you referring, perchance, to this and this?

If so, see this comment on the former and this examination of the quality of peer review of the novel and remarkable theories of some of the editors in question.

I was actually talking about their getting away with comparing me to the KKK and calling me a neo-nazi and white supremacist, despite the fact that they have nothing to back it up and never could, as it's so far from true it's pathetic. But, hey, your links may work well too.

That was them?

Yeah, that seems to be a popular tactic for them lately: If they can't find a quote to take out-of-context in order to attempt to discredit their opponents, they make something up.

Originally it was SWATjester. That was directed to the_undertow. In this case, in giggy's RFA, it was OrangeMarlin. I can go find the diff if needed. It was his edit summary that was most shameful.

I'm thinking that the most likely 'good outcome' that anyone who was wronged by them in the past can hope for is that they finally piss off too many people, or the wrong people, and find themselves banned or at least severely curtailed.

My view is that if someone wants to craft a theory about another person, and defend it with evidence and reasoning, that's an instance of constructing a scientific model or analysis. The way I do science, any proposed theory or model should be subjected to scientifc peer review. I would welcome a scientific peer review of any of the theories about me, Undertow, Lara, etc, as well as any original theories about Wikipedia Review or other sites of interest.

I would also be grateful if those who understand WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:SYN, etc, would check to see whether these various biographical sketches of any of us comply with those policies, per WP:BLP#Non-article_space.

What I don't know is how to request any of the above.

Heh. I love how OrangeMarlin decides that considering the comment fallacious is a personal attack.

If OM's "well-founded opinion" can withstand scientific peer review, then he is on solid ground.

So, as a scientist, I would ask him, "What is your evidence and reasoning to support your stated theory?"

Has anyone asked him that question?

If so, what is his response?

When a person takes "I think your opinion is fallacious" as a personal attack, it's a very good sign that any attempt to initiate a conversation with them will be an exercise in masochism. No, I'm content to let that little exchange stand as-is, since it only reflects poorly on OM.

OM's comment is so over the top it sounds like joking satire. "Maggot?" Not very civil. R. Lee Ermey disease, maybe? Drop and give us 25 for saying that, OrangeMarlin. This ain't the marines.

Amusing link, but he WAS replying to a user named "SynergisticMaggot" after all. It's reasonable to choose one half or the other of a two word ID when addressing someone, I think. So that's NBD I would think.

Fair enough. I totally missed that. No wonder I was the only one surprised.

Yeah, nobody here but us disgrunts.

Jon