SPLIT: ID, CC, and other asinine initialisms

[iii]

Smugness and arrogance is common with agenda-driven editors because, I think, those drawn to violate WP's NPOV policy trying to achieve some goal are people with certain character flaws. Narcissism being one of them.

I don't think you realize how much of an "act" certain people put on when dealing with Wikipedia. It's not difficult to adopt the strident persona when you want to get your way on the internet.

Qworty's behavior most reminds me of the atheist activists who control the Intelligent Design and other "religious science" type articles. Most of those guys are completely insufferable.

But see, a lot of them (and myself) find your harping and holier-than-thou attitude to be rather insufferable as well. In fact, I hardly see the distinction, which was kinda my point.

[Cla68]

Smugness and arrogance is common with agenda-driven editors because, I think, those drawn to violate WP's NPOV policy trying to achieve some goal are people with certain character flaws. Narcissism being one of them.

I don't think you realize how much of an "act" certain people put on when dealing with Wikipedia. It's not difficult to adopt the strident persona when you want to get your way on the internet.

Qworty's behavior most reminds me of the atheist activists who control the Intelligent Design and other "religious science" type articles. Most of those guys are completely insufferable.

But see, a lot of them (and myself) find your harping and holier-than-thou attitude to be rather insufferable as well. In fact, I hardly see the distinction, which was kinda my point.

You appear to be indicating that there is some private off-wiki discussion ongoing between the editors of that topic that you have access to or am I misinterpreting what you're saying? Otherwise, I don't know how you could claim to know what they think if they have never said anything publicly here or on wiki.

[iii]

You appear to be indicating that there is some private off-wiki discussion ongoing between the editors of that topic that you have access to or am I misinterpreting what you're saying? Otherwise, I don't know how you could claim to know what they think if they have never said anything publicly here or on wiki.

I think the "editors in that topic" were pretty clear about their opinions of your attitude and style in the discussion surrounding your climate change topic ban. No conspiracy theorizing necessary.

[Cla68]

You appear to be indicating that there is some private off-wiki discussion ongoing between the editors of that topic that you have access to or am I misinterpreting what you're saying? Otherwise, I don't know how you could claim to know what they think if they have never said anything publicly here or on wiki.

I think the "editors in that topic" were pretty clear about their opinions of your attitude and style in the discussion surrounding your climate change topic ban. No conspiracy theorizing necessary.

iii, I was referring to the Intelligent Design and theistic science articles, not climate change. As far as I know, besides Dave Souza, none of those editors were involved in the climate change case. Furthermore, none of the climate change editors, including Dave Souza, made any kind of personal statements about me on-wiki that I'm aware of (along the lines of, "I resent Cla68's imperious attitude"). So, again, how do you know what they think?

[iii]

iii, I was referring to the Intelligent Design and theistic science articles, not climate change. As far as I know, besides Dave Souza, none of those editors were involved in the climate change case. Furthermore, none of the climate change editors, including Dave Souza, made any kind of personal statements about me on-wiki that I'm aware of (along the lines of, "I resent Cla68's imperious attitude"). So, again, how do you know what they think?

I'll let the (interested? soon to be bored?) reader decide.

At the very least it is possible to see how your activities at intelligent design were connected by others to climate change; though you insist these are unrelated activities, I also see parallels. To be sure, one might interpret this turgid discussion differently than I. But you already know my opinion....

No objection to thread splitting. Sorry, Eric.

[Cla68]

iii, I was referring to the Intelligent Design and theistic science articles, not climate change. As far as I know, besides Dave Souza, none of those editors were involved in the climate change case. Furthermore, none of the climate change editors, including Dave Souza, made any kind of personal statements about me on-wiki that I'm aware of (along the lines of, "I resent Cla68's imperious attitude"). So, again, how do you know what they think?

I'll let the (interested? soon to be bored?) reader decide.

At the very least it is possible to see how your activities at intelligent design were connected by others to climate change; though you insist these are unrelated activities, I also see parallels. To be sure, one might interpret this turgid discussion differently than I. But you already know my opinion....

No objection to thread splitting. Sorry, Eric.

Yes, one reason I got involved in both the climate change and ID topics was because I was disgusted with the arrogant and high-handed manner that the activists who were trying to own those topics were treating other editors, besides their mauling of related BLPs. I don't see how any self-respecting academic could treat people that way. Anyway, to return to this topic, Qworty's behavior is much the same as the CC and ID editors, and it shows a pattern of behavior in agenda-driven WP editors.

Actually, this is related in another way. After the CC case closed with Connolley being topic banned and Kim D. Petersen accepting a "voluntary" BLP ban, two of the people whose BLPs had been attacked by those two thanked me for un-siccing those two from their articles. I imagine that Fillipachi had the same helpless feeling when Qworty attacked her bio after the OpEd was published.

[Poetlister]

Slim would most often win by simply wearing her opponents down through sheer volume of edits, through successful manipulation of the Wiki-rules and policies, and by outright banning.

Don't forget amending policies she didn't like. If I remember rightly, she even tried to create a whole new pillar to replace WP:RS and WP:NOR.

[Randy from Boise]

Slim would most often win by simply wearing her opponents down through sheer volume of edits, through successful manipulation of the Wiki-rules and policies, and by outright banning.

Don't forget amending policies she didn't like. If I remember rightly, she even tried to create a whole new pillar to replace WP:RS and WP:NOR.

If that pillar was to be WP:VERACITY, I would be on the train with her.

RfB

[Tarc]

Slim would most often win by simply wearing her opponents down through sheer volume of edits, through successful manipulation of the Wiki-rules and policies, and by outright banning.

Don't forget amending policies she didn't like. If I remember rightly, she even tried to create a whole new pillar to replace WP:RS and WP:NOR.

If that pillar was to be WP:VERACITY, I would be on the train with her.

RfB

WP:HOTTIE (T-H-L) could be a pillar.

[Vigilant]

Get out of my Qworty thread.
Shoo!

[Hex]

Sorry!

Slim would most often win by simply wearing her opponents down through sheer volume of edits, through successful manipulation of the Wiki-rules and policies, and by outright banning.

Don't forget amending policies she didn't like. If I remember rightly, she even tried to create a whole new pillar to replace WP:RS and WP:NOR.

I was studiously not paying attention to that part of the project in those days. Any linkies?

[Hersch]

For the longest time, the epitome of the successful POV-pusher on Wikipedia was SlimVirgin (T-C-L). Her style was much less brazen that Qworty's, and certainly not so "in your face".

She and her coterie of followers, including Will Beback, perfected the passive-aggressive style of combat, where they were able to use what seemed at first blush to be soothingly civil, constructive and responsible language in a way that was precisely calculated to enrage their opponents and drive them to distraction, setting them up for the inevitable ban.

[Poetlister]

Sorry!

Slim would most often win by simply wearing her opponents down through sheer volume of edits, through successful manipulation of the Wiki-rules and policies, and by outright banning.

Don't forget amending policies she didn't like. If I remember rightly, she even tried to create a whole new pillar to replace WP:RS and WP:NOR.

I was studiously not paying attention to that part of the project in those days. Any linkies?

It was called Wikipedia:Attribution and was billed as "a means of merging Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:No original research, while also streamlining Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ at WP:ATT/FAQ". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution)

[iii]

Yes, one reason I got involved in both the climate change and ID topics was because I was disgusted with the arrogant and high-handed manner that the activists who were trying to own those topics were treating other editors, besides their mauling of related BLPs. I don't see how any self-respecting academic could treat people that way.

Isn't a bit presumptuous of you to say how academics should or should not behave if they have self respect?

Actually, this is related in another way. After the CC case closed with Connolley being topic banned and Kim D. Petersen accepting a "voluntary" BLP ban, two of the people whose BLPs had been attacked by those two thanked me for un-siccing those two from their articles.

Were you flattered by this thanks? Just curious.

[Hersch]

iii, please stop whining. It grates on my ears.

[iii]

iii, please stop whining. It grates on my ears.

It's rather interesting to me that you think my comments indicate whining.