Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 18

Who is criticizing

TK has now removed multiple times source information about who critics are of the project. It is not just the "main stream" press but it much more wide spread. The article talks about multiple prominent political and religious leaders who have criticized the project. Below is the text that was reverted:

The project has generally received negative reactions from the Mainstream media, as well as multiple prominent political and religious leaders from both ends of the political spectrum.

Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can plainly see below I didn't remove so much as was not aware of the changes, because you were editing and changing so fast, and I was editing the main section. Isn't this a rather petty charge to make? Is there nothing that can please you, TMT? --TK-CP (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To edit the "main" section, copy a section edit link, paste it into your browser's location bar, and change the number at the end to "0". This minimizes edit conflicts, and makes your preview shorter if you use it. I still don't know why Wikipedia hasn't started using the "&edit&section=0" tab at the top, but that isn't what this talk page is about. Huw Powell (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Go to "Preferences" -> "User interface gadgets: editing" tab, mark the "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" box. So simple and makes it easier to play nice. Pirate^Argh!!1! 04:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Huw Powell (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

fn 36

Per:WP:V#Reliable_sources_and_neutrality and WP:BLP#Deceased_and_legal_persons.3B_groups, what is this doing in this article? [1] nobs (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The reliability is iffy, but I don't see what the BLP policy has to do with merely using a reference. Wikipedia doesn't guarantee that all WP's BLP policies are followed on external websites that are linked to. Nobs, you really need to elaborate on exactly what your argument is and what you want to be done about it, rather than vaguely linking to policy pages. If all you want done is for others to review something fishy and you're not trying to make a particular change, then say so. But please, be more explicit. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Reliable sources aren't required to be blindly neutral; also, as far as the BLP thing, I have no idea what you mean. Did the author of the article cited die recently? Huw Powell (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP states,when dealing with groups, particularly very small ones, edits made to Wikipedia could have a bearing on living persons, so exercise caution.... When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. And from the blog title, as accurate as a catatonic drunkard’s line of urine, it certainly fails WP:V#Reliable_sources_and_neutrality (a policy, incidently) particularly since it's in the Intro. nobs (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever, would you care to try to re-explain, as far as it relates to the WP policy link you made above? Also, are you suggesting a change in wording to the article? If so, what is your suggestion? Huw Powell (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That section seems to say editors should try not to give undue weight to minority views. I fail to see what that has to do with the title of the blog; it certainly doesn't mandate that sources themselves be neutral. As for "high-quality sources," that's a fairly broad suggestion, so I don't think the opinionated title should immediately disqualify it. (Note: I have not read the source; however, it only appears to be used to cited in relation to the existence of criticism and an assertion by Conservapedia, so I'm not sure how it really affects anyone.) 99.50.96.218 (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The RS neutrality section reminds articles must adhere and NPOV in rough proportion to the prominence of each view and links to WP:NPOV#Undue weight which states an RS may be verifiable and impartial (catatonic urine is impartial?) but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic. This is an important consideration.... undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quality of text, prominence of placement...

Besides the Intro fn 36 also links to the term "breast cancer" and doesn't do much to support an already contentious issue, other than provide more evidence Consrevapedia has been the target of self-admitted cyber vandals. nobs (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You know nobs, as much as you my enjoy playing Policy Roulette, hoping that is you cite enough policies one will eventually actually apply to the situation in your favor, this is getting tiresome. Undue weight would apply if the article were becoming dominated by this one pretty insignificant source, but that simply is not what's happening. We're not going into too much depth of detail with this source (we're barely mentioning it at all), nor is it placed too prominently. You can argue about quality, but so far you haven't made a strong case. Can't wait which policy page you're going to link to next. -R. fiend (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please cease the personal references addressed to me and discuss the article and it's adhereece to Wikipedia policy. Thank you. nobs (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why this was archived, it is a legitimate question about a source used in the article. The source is a blog, it is not a source of accurate fact, and that is how it is being used. It is used first to say that "Conservapedia asserts that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer", which I do not think it is a reliable source for.

It is then used again to say that "The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for numerous factual inaccuracies" but I do not think that this blog is any evidence of significant criticism. For what this source is being used for it does not seem to be a reliable source. Surely something better can be found. Weakopedia (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The actual issue with fn 36

WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP are all content concerns, which this is not. The only issue is whether or not this is a reliable source (WP:RS). Like I said before, it's iffy at best, and no one has really wholeheartedly supported that it is reliable. Hypocrite has replaced the source with better ones. If anyone disagrees with this particular action, speak now or hold your peace. Otherwise, let's consider this issue resolved and move on. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change. Mark resolved. nobs (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Why is http://blogs.news.com.au/news/splat/index.php/news/comments/conservapedia_perversapedia/%7Cwork=Splat! iffy? The author says some strong things that are obviously personal opinion, but the factual observations were true in 2007 and oddly, despite nearly 3 years since objectively false statements of fact in Conservapedia articles being brought to their attention, they remain true to this day. User:Conservative has not corrected the EJH Corner quote he mined in the evolution article. Aschlafly, a lawyer, rather than simply move on, argues in the "National Cancer Institute on Abortion" article that the National Cancer Institute was wrong. Seems like the Maloney blog got things exactly right. Does anyone have any actual analysis under WP:RS of whether this is or isn't a good source? Ya know, instead of just arguing by assertion? Nuttish (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with B Fizz and Nobs01....let's move on instead of re-arguing obviously resolved issues! --TK-CP (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is likely that no one cares what a single-issue editor thinks. Huw Powell (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Silly banter won't help address the concerns, and that applies to both of you.

The issue at hand doesn't seem to be whether the points raised by the source are true, but whether the general source counts as a RS. I don't have enough wiki-experience (or time) to judge this, but I'll just throw this into the ring. It appears as if only two other articles ever link to it, and that's the author's article and 81st Academy Awards to make a minor point. This isn't saying that it's not a RS, but it seems to be a pointer that looking for more favored sources may not have been the worst idea. --Sid 3050 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That has always been the tough part with this barely-notable article - finding RSs that talk about it. Mostly, there's the Stephanie Simon article. After that, all we have are some blogs, RW and their whining, and a few mentions on Comedy Central. Although CP is linked on the eagle forum, nothing is really said there. Although, there is Phyllis' radio interview of her son regarding the site, with callers adding color and amusement. Huw Powell (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@Nuttish - the blog shouldn't be included because it is a blog, not because of it's content. There is no editorial control over it's content, it is just some fellow saying some stuff. Because there is no editorial control there is no-one with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who is willing to vouch for it. The fact that this blog appeared on a news service does not give it any extra weight, it remains the opinion of one person.

The reason it shouldn't be used is that, since it is the opinion of one person, we would then be required to validate those opinions with actual factual sources, and that would become original research. The blog may have some accurate statements, but it has no authority for them and we must independantly verify what it says.

Blogs remain the opinions of individuals - even if they contain fact they have no authority and no place in an encyclopedia. Weakopedia (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Old criticisms

In the intro, what is currently note 7 is a news article from March, 2007. It still references the old kangaroo article, which fiscal and social conservative Tom Flanagan (political scientist) called "loony tunes stuff." [2]

This raises two points:

1. Does CP still present biology articles from a Young Earth Creationist perspective?
2. If not, or if not so much as before, how should we describe the shift in perspective?

I'd like to say something like, "At first the project attracted criticism for its YEC perspective, but over the years it has mellowed, and its biology articles embrace both wings of Creationism as well as presenting the mainstream scientific perspective." --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Find a source that discusses the shift without having to resort to sifting through CP articles on our own and you're fine. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Its biology articles embrace both wings of Creationism" really makes it sound fair and balanced. KenDenier (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Then fix it. The sentence isn't even true. The bio articles on CP are overwhelmingly YEC, and indeed any effort to add material that's not YEC friendly is met with the typical Schlafly screed about reading the bible and having an open mind and eventually a block, or the typical User:Conservative "please provide me with a fairly exhaustive listing of academic resources blah blah blah." I like your username Ken. Nuttish (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Kangaroo article currently awards eleven lines of text to the YEC position and one line of text the the evolutionist position (which basically says 'Evolutionists think that kangaroos evolved'). So yes, CP still does present biology articles from a YEC perspective. EddyJP (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

All of this is original research. We need to have new reliable sources in order to make changes to the article for these purposes.Gomedog (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Agreed. The above dialog is moot without an outside perspective. However, in my opinion, we are going to be hard pressed to find a secondary source that alleges a shift of Conservapedia away from YEC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Read WP:OR. It's not OR to note whether specific CP biology articles advance a YEC perspective, as completely unreliable as CP is when it comes to the truth value of any particular claim made there. WP:OR discusses the circumstances under which a questionable source like Conservapedia can be an adequate source on itself. I also think the sentence Ed Poor proposes is flat out false, although it's funny that he recognizes YEC as an extreme position from which one might "mellow" in the first place. He should address the "student panel"User:Conservative's stranglehold on the evolution article and dozens and dozens of others rather than trying to rewrite history here on Wikipedia. Nuttish (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, though in this case I still see it as problematic, especially when applied to a wiki project. For one thing, the content can change at any time. Even when reviewing, looking for articles that would fit into the proposed perspective, they could be in a state that would not last long. There may also be counter-examples, which could make this work on selective evidence. Additionally, how could we go about doing this? Should we choose some representative articles to display? What would be the qualifications? Or a survey of many articles? Once again, they could change.

If there were a policy about including these different perspectives, then I guess we could cite that, but the verifiability would still rest on the above, so we would cite the claim. Other than that, I think I would still be reluctant to include this without a reliable source, unless others have ideas on how this could be done. Gomedog (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a diff of the site owner making an edit on an article or talk page telling people what is and what isn't acceptable would work? Huw Powell (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I thought of something else too. Perhaps Conservapedia has a set of protected articles because how they express their views? One could look at those and see what characteristics they share? Or is that too deep in OR? This would (hopefully) be a small sample, that also would not be subject to easy change. Once again, if they conformed to a policy that we could cite, that would help. Or we could cite the claim of an administrator about these articles?Gomedog (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just read WP:OR again. Telling people what Conservapedia says about itself is not OR. The only question is how best to capture such a statement. I agree with Huw Powell that finding some choice diffs of the site owner taking a position would be helpful. And of course, to answer your question, the entire evolution article is locked from editing - anyone with a pair of eyes can see that it expressly advocates YEC. That's not OR. Nuttish (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very cautious about using CP as a reference - there's also WP:PRIMARY, which I've previously had to use to stop this article descending into "hey, look what they've done now!" territory. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, Martin. I think the solution to what may very well be a slippery slope is NPOV and specifically undue weight. Clearly much that happens on Conservapedia isn't encyclopedia. The fringe positions on a number of important subjects should be described accurately with an aim toward avoiding unsourced synthesis and other OR. But basic descriptions of content like I described above shouldn't be controversial. There's no shortage of examples of YEC being the party line over there. I'd like to see better reasons to avoid Conservapedia on Conservapedia as a flakey but good enough source other than a general fear that we'll just point our fingers at them and laugh. There are better places for that than Conservapedia. Nuttish (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we use this?

It's an interview with Andy Schlafly, in which he outlines his reasoning behind the CBP, and defends conservatism as the most logical of positions - I think this is the first off-wiki mention of this idea of his. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks usable to me. Not a fabulously reliable source, but it's good considering what we've got. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Totnes, he did go on the Colbert Report to talk about it. But that wasn't very "quotable" since it was played for comedy. Whatever we can get out of this article would be great, I don't see why it isn't "fabulously reliable". Huw Powell (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

ROFL, what's not "fabulously reliable" about quotes in the Princeton alum magazine? Seems about as reliable as sources like this get. What's your beef now, BFizz? Why isn't this a perfectly reliable source for Schlafly on Schlafly? Nuttish (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reliable to me. Its real flaw is that is doesn't really bring any new information to the table. It's all stuff we've heard before. -R. fiend (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the "conservatism is logical" line is in the article, and neither is Schlafly's defence of analysing the Bible via the lens of politics, which could go in the CBP section. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely call this a reliable source. Why wouldn't it be? Using it would just need context, since it is a lot more about the person than the wiki, and his own personal views are not necessarily the views espoused by the wiki. Both of Totnesmartin's suggestions I think could go in. Overall I don't see much useful here either (his math problem is just bizarre to me, for example) Gomedog (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@Totnesmartin - Schlafly really did say astonishing things like: "Many of the concepts in the Bible are also politically conservative, so the expectation is that the original intent of the Bible will express concepts that would be called conservative today" and "The lens of politics can be a powerful and effective means of getting at the truth. ... By looking at things through a political lens, it often becomes easier to see what should not be there and where the biases come in. A political analysis of the manuscripts is an easier way to identify passages that are not authentic to the true spirit of the Bible than other approaches" Oh and when asked if he was optimist about conservative prospects today he answered that the 2008 election was an "aberration" that was turned around with "stunningly conservative outcomes" in 2009 because "conservatism is mostly logic, and ultimately logic prevails." Are these the ideas you were referring to? Nuttish (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much, although I'm dubious about including his analysis of the 2008/9 elections - I don't know how well we could work that in. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If one starts with their mind already made up, by labeling something "astonishing" that really isn't, that's where we have gotten into trouble before. I know many political annalists (like Dick Morris) who believe that is so, just as Jimmy Carter's election is viewed by many historians and annalists as an aberration. Using key words, pejoratives, to shade or tone this article isn't what is needed anymore. Is it at all possible to discuss this without adding in one's incredulity? --TK-CP (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax. This is the talk page, not the article. Nothing from this article has even been added yet. Gomedog (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for condescending to me, Gomedog. I am aware of what has, or has not been added, and this is a talk page. Are you trying to denigrate my opinion by assuming my state of mind? --TK-CP (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Give it a rest. -R. fiend (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

TK, I am telling you that you are jumping the gun. Also, please be civil. Gomedog (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how my observational comment jumped anything, Gomedog, because I am missing your point obviously...one shouldn't post such observations, like all the other users above in this topic have? --TK-CP (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The "aberation" comment belongs more in Andrew Schlafly then here, IMO. nobs (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no Andrew Schlafly article. It redirects to Conservapedia. Nuttish (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Privacy and civility revisited

There are no privacy issues Hipocrite (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Privacy issues? Right here. [3] This proves Rationalwiki founders lied to Stephanie Simon not only about who the founder of Rationalwiki was, it proves they lied about when it was founded. That puts the whole story they gave to Stephanie Simon in question; Lipson and Rationalwiki editors were not blocked for ideological conflict, they were blocked for being part of a coordinated vandal cabal. WP:BLP says, We must get it right. The non-public information needs to be reviewed independently to determine if, in fact, Rationalwiki editors who have written and controlled this article for several years now, did in fact mislead Stephanie Simon, a WP:RS. nobs (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TK-CP (talk • contribs) Per WP:BLP We must get it right. This page & Archive 15 are loaded with evidence to support the claim Rationalwiki editors misrepresented the facts to Stephanie Simon. Here, [4] a WP talk page is used for recruiting into the vandal "cabal." Here in Archive `15, the claim is made Rationalwiki had a lone vandal, user:Icewedge; at User_talk:Tmtoulouse/archive1#Plot Icewedge states, "I hear theres a plot to destroy Conservapedia you posted on my friends user talk page. Your sending him an E-Mail or somthing. Good luck. ". nobs (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I propose that we find a new home for this section (newly-refactored by me) other than this talk page. The assertion that Nobs makes that "The non-public information needs to be reviewed independently" has nothing to do with our work here at Wikipedia. If a reliable source does such an independent review, great. We'll use it. Until then, Nobs' accusations regarding a "coordinated vandal cabal" are not only original research, they also defame living persons (though most [all?] of them are pseudonymous). ...comments? ~BFizz 00:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I thought the point was to get a ruling on the privacy violations of Sid 3050, before we can proceed, since no Admin here seems inclined to remove that material, I wouldn't want to enable sweeping it under the rug (literally) by moving it elsewhere. Sid has repeatedly said he didn't intend to do such a thing, so where is the conflict in removing what he posted here and on PappaNovember's page? It seems almost impossible to discuss any objections here because doing so always leads to an attack on those of us who seek fairness and change, and the dragging in of extraneous material, which the Admins are reluctant to remove until things get out of hand. I say cut the baby in half, have two articles and then let leading editors with a proven record of fairness merge the two. Possibly not the usual method, but I am open to a better idea. --TK-CP (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC) How is this section connected to your privacy violation accusations against me? I haven't even been mentioned so far. And it's true that I didn't intend to violate anybody's privacy here. What's also true is that I didn't violate anybody's privacy here, so why should I remove or censor my posts? This would just set an odd precedent where certain names from a public source are forbidden from being mentioned just because the mere act of quoting from the source would violate someone's privacy. I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen until the Oversight Panel says so, and I sincerely doubt that it will. What the source says is public, and if I merely mention information from the source, then I'm using public information. And that's not a violation of privacy. Also, could you please elaborate on the last part? You seem to suggest a full rewrite of the entire article... If so, please make a new section for it since it's a major suggestion to say the least. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC) [unindent] BFizz, I respectfully disagree with some points you've made. You've been most fair in a thankless task, and I thank you for it. But I do not believe I'm discussing or proposing OR. As to civility & privacy, let me restate, these concerns have always been uppermost in my mind and hopefully my actions. I did not come here to embarass individuals or anything like that. I've asked for private mediation for close to a month now. I've intervened on behalf of several Rationalwiki founding editors on behalf of their privacy rights several times and have been slapped down for it. I think we can proceed in an atmosphere of civility to get it right, (although my original proposal to strip out the names of all persons from the Stephanie Simon LA Times article should still be considered). For now, using WP:V which is policy not guideline, I most likely carry the issue of Stephanie Simon reporting misinformation she recieved from Rationalwiki editors to the WP:RSN, and there, per WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues we can get independent examination of Non-public details (although enough public details may already exist to show the unwitting errors reported by Stephanie Simon). A further option is available, users with COI who may have mispresented facts to Stephanie Simon and are actively attempting to continue using a Wikipedia mainpace to perpetuate that misninformation, in the interest of privacy, may now see the point in stripping out all names from the LA Times article. Thanks to all for their hard work and attention. nobs (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC) More of the same.......Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I appreciate your civility with me, Nobs. When you say "non-public details", that seems equivalent to saying "details that are not documented in a reliable source". Whether or not RW editors lied to Simon, there's no way to verify that unless we have "public details". I've slightly reworded the RW section to more closely adhere to Simon's description of what happened, and to take a more objective view of the whole situation. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:DR#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues lists four examples disputes involving sensitive or non-public information (note: per this policy, an Arbitrator, Checkuser, or Ovedrsighter does not have to be directly engaged because it states, "and disputes where there is a concern of a sensitive or private nature." For example, whether or not users who misled a reputable mainstream journalist are activiely continuing the ruse against Wikipedia). Several examples cited may apply nin this case, but this one i cite: Non-public details - Issues where details and evidence are not accessible to all participants or to the community as a whole. This can also happen due to copyright or privacy reasons, BLP, or when the material is on an unsuitable external link; ... The Non-public details are pages retrieved from RationalWiki 1.0 which show collusion of cyber-vandalism among several active Wikipedia editors who also are Rationalwiki founding editors and several who have edited this mainspace and other Conservapedia/related articles. This collusion dates from a time prior to statements made to Stephanie Simon regarding when, and under what circumstances the Rationalwiki website came into existence. Enough information exists in public sources, here in Wikipedia, and in Rationalwiki, to give reasonable cause to the assertion Rationalwiki founders made false statements to Stephanie Simon of the LA Times. These same Rationalwiki founders have actively edited this mainspace for several years. Here's a simple example of the cause that shows Peter Lipson was involved in Rationalwiki prior to the time he represented Stephanie Simon that he did. From the Rationalwiki website: RationalWiki#History: The original wiki was wiped and RationalWiki 2.0 was created as an open editing wiki, on May 22, 2007. In an article about the mass blocking of editors, PalMD weighs in with a comment about sockpuppetry a week before Rationalwiki supposedly was founded: Great Purge#That's it: I hope youre wearing socks, cuz aren't you permabanned?PalMDtalk 19:48, 16 May 2007 (CDT) There's is more avaialable from public sources. nobs (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Your accusations have been addressed repeatedly, repetition doesn't gain you anything. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Careful, nobs, you are verging on slander. By which I mean, calling good faith wikipedia editors "liars" without any evidence whatsoever. Huw Powell (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Its not verging, he is calling us liars and vandals. He is equivocating two different websites and trying to draw some weird synthesis that has no baring on anything at all. Its an attack on on his fellow editors, with no content discussion what-so-ever. All of his posts should simply be removed from the talk page till he drops this idiocy and discusses content. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC) The veracity of reliable source information can be tested particularly where there is cause to do so. nobs (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Assuming good faith does not mean one should ignore evidence of bad. On this page a WP Admin posted that sometimes one must take as evidence what is posted on a website as to policy, etc. In the interest of compromise and conciliation, I would be ready to agree that RW no longer has such a vandalism policy, if RW's editors here are prepared to own its past activities, or at least its encouragement of such. We all live and learn, hopefully, and I don't be the one to say anyplace remains static....doesn't change over time. --TK-CP (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I've made a few further changes. The article now states that Several editors whose accounts were blocked by Conservapedia administrators, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki... The article (now) makes no definite assertion of what happened first. It leaves open the possibility that they were blocked because they started RationalWiki, though it does suggest (as the LA Times article, the only RS we have on the issue, suggests) that the block came first. The phrase "started RationalWiki" is also sufficiently vague to allow the interpretation to be that they "started RationalWiki as we know it now, aka RationalWiki 2.0". I don't see this as a big issue, Nobs. The article, as it stands, has no BLP issues, as we have previously discussed. It doesn't cast CP into terribly negative light. Nobs, you don't seem to have any privacy issues so you should feel free to bring up any content disputes that you like. But you really should stop the wikilawyering. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC) In addition to the two links referenced above to Rationalwiki to support the claim of mispresentation of fact to Stephanie Simon, more evidence is available from the Rationalwiki website. User:Flippin published his interview with Ms. Simon here, excerpted: "one editor, tmtoulouse, would go to user pages and invite people one at a time to join him for a discussion about CP. The site he led us to was Rationalwiki. At first we just complained about CP, their policies, petty actions, etc. Then we began a process that was very similar some cyber-terror tactics (although much less sexy, frankly.) Basically, we wanted to cause CP editors/sysops to waste time dealing with us. This would not really bring the site down, but it would tie things in knots. It was very manipulative. At some point, a CP sysop (we think TK) found his way to RW and learned who all of us were. He returned to CP and began systematically banning us from the site. Some RW editors jokingly note the similarity to the German “Kristalnacht.” Once many of us were banned, we began to think of a new way to covertly deal with CP, to create socks? Get to the press? We weren’t sure. Finally we settled on creating our own site …” Summary: Rationalwiki was created (a) before the time Rationalwiki founders told Stephanie Simon it was; (b) who the lead actor in Rationalwiki was; (c) Rationalwiki founding editors were engaged in "cyber-terror" tacitcs before the time represented to Stephanie Simon of the LA Times; (d) Rationalwiki editors were mass blocked for coordinated "cyber-vandalism" (per the LA Times), and not for the ideological reasons RW editors represented to the LA Times. nobs (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Here we go again... A user gave Simon a straight account of what happened in terms of site history (RW 1.0, CP sysop infiltrating, mass banning, RW 2.0 - as you just quoted), so what's the misrepresentation? It certainly looks like we gave Simon a pretty clear picture of RW's history. What does it matter who a lead actor was? Neither the LA Times article nor the WP one makes any claim about who the lead actor is, so again, what's the issue or misrepresentation? Neither the LA Times article nor the WP one claims that RW editors were blocked for ideological reasons. What's the issue? Nobs, I'm sorry, but you're simply attacking RW again without bothering to discuss the content of this Wikipedia article. This talk page is not a forum where you can push your little OR theories. It's for improving the article. Either make specific and clear content suggestions or stop. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC) ":Response to See Summary above. The LA Times reads, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com The LA Times reads, "...a glance at the entry's history -- which shows editing over time -- makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted.... [RW editors] quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com nobs (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I don't think anyone cares any more Rob. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Unblock me at Rationalwiki and I'll post the evidence on a user subpage; that could speed the process. Or alternatively, we could begin quiet mediation and I'll share the non-public information I have with yourself. I've been reviewing it for the past week and it is ready to submit to Wikipedia and Stephanie Simon. I just don't have the technical skills to lump several supporting documents into a single email attachment, but I'm learning. Should be ready tomorrow morning. nobs (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Bated-motherfucking-breath. That is all. -R. fiend (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC) There is no process to speed. This debate has been over for a week. Please move on. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Rational Wiki own article

Please have a look at WP:AFC if you would like a new article to be created or WP:DRV if you would like a deleted article to be restored. This page is only for discussing improvements to the Conservapedia article. Papa November (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think RW should have its own article, maybe there is a reason why not?? Evenon its own site they show that its been publishe din verifiable sources which wikipedia accepts. That being so, and it being noteworthy enough it has grown beynd just attacking CP and thus deserves its own article.It would also goive a place for debating it rather than here. I don't want to spend hours in pointless edit wars and trolling so I just post this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Speaking as a regular on the site, even I would have trouble coming up with enough verifiable third-party interest to justify a Wikipedia article on it - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I think one of the issues highlighted here with RW is that while there are WP:RS sources, and it probably just skirts in over the notability guidelines (it did pass a RFD), it lacks enough material to produce significant wp:verifiable content. Also the sources only discuss it in relation to its role with CP. Hence why merging it in this article is probably the best solution. If the time comes that some more WP:RS sources cover RW we can go from there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Just for convenience's sake, here's the afd. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Yeah, assuming your DSL doesn't actually melt - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Emailed request for action to me from Nobs

Nobs emailed me earlier asking me to take action on this article and page and against RationalWiki editors here as a Wikipedia administrator, evidently unaware that I'm also a RationalWiki editor and administrator and so couldn't reasonably take administrative action on the subject. Presumably Possibly he's privately emailed more than a few Wikipedia admins.

Asking people to take public action on Wikipedia based on a private correspondence, if they're not the ArbCom, is regarded as more than a little questionable. So Nobs, if you could please post the text you sent me here, for the sake of transparency? Or I can, with your permission of course - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Text

Thank you, David. Might I add, your interpretation about "asking to take action," posted here and elsewhere is at variance with the text below. Let's let readers of this exchange decide. Thank you. nobs (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

contents of email exchange between Nobs01 to David Gerard. Hidden as there are no specific proposed/disputed changes to this article. Papa November (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rationalwiki 1.0 & primary supporting evidence 3 messages Rob Smith [redacted] Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:02 PM To: [redacted] Attached are non-public records from Rationalwiki in wiki format as evidence to the claim Rationalwiki's founders may have misled LA Times reporter Stephanie Simon in a 17 June 2007 article which has been cited as a reliable source for several Wikipedia articles for the last three years. These insertions, complete with the misrepresentations of fact, have placed into the Wikipedia articles by possibly the same Rationalwiki editors. The attached Rationalwiki 1.0 in wiki format contains a contextual narrative with footnotes prepared by me. The underlying documentation is available at this link: Primary documents [5] This email and these documents may be shared with good faith editors of the Wikipedia project interested in assisting to bring about NPOV and other applicable Wikipedia policies as they pertain to the Conservapedia/related entries. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Nobs01 aka RobSmith @ Rationalwiki & Conservapedia Attachment: Rationalwiki_1.0_wiki_format.doc 167K From: David Gerard [redacted] Rob Smith [redacted] Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:31 PM To: David Gerard [redacted] Well Sir, Rationalwiki founders perpetrated a hoax against a reliable source, Stephanie Simon of the LA Times. They again hoaxed Wikipedia with a conflict of interest by inserting this material. [redacted] I have been trying for about two months to remove references to [redacted] from the Conservapedia article in WP. In the interests of [redacted] privacy, and other Rationalwiki editors who apparently edit under thier real life identity, and WP:BLP "we must get it right", I'm asking you to review this non-public information. You may not be aware Rationalwiki owners came under criticism for a more recent hoax in the "Hit List" affair. I've been trying to resolve several of these difficult issues quietly, and I thought possibly you may be in a position to help all parties affected. Thank you nobs/RobSmith

Thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you David. As noted above, I've been trying to resolve this matter quietly. I've noticed you've become more active in RW lately and assume you enjoy good relations with editors there. I'm not asking for public action (other than removal of real life identities from this article), so I figured you may be in a position to assist them in understanding what may be at stake. They won't listen to me. nobs (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No reliable sources are contained in the above email. It is not actionable. Hipocrite (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Already watched by uninvolved admin

I'm already keeping an eye on this article in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. As far as I can see, there are no edit wars, no obvious vandalism and nothing else that requires the use of admin tools here. If anyone believes that I could use my admin tools to improve this article, please send me a two-sentence message using the template: "Please block/protect/delete <page/user>. It will improve the Conservapedia article because <reason>." I will not consider any requests which do not (at least roughly) follow this template. Admins at Wikipedia have no power beyond stopping extremely obvious disruption or enforcing community decisions - we are not permitted to make unilateral decisions about anything else.

If you feel that another editor/admin is behaving inappropriately, concerns will only be considered if you go through the dispute resolution process. Please do not make any further comments about your concerns regarding other editors on this page; it is not helping to improve the Conservapedia article and the comments will be removed. Papa November (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This appears to have nothing to do with this article at all.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can't see that any action at all deriving from the communication. I don't see what the whole point is of all this is. There were loads of requests from nobs for changes to the article which I couldn't make head or tail of and seemed to go nowhere and now there's this which I can't see the point of either. If nobs can't express himself/herself properly could someone else please try and make an effort to explain what they think the concern or desired changes or actions or whatever are. They've put a lot of effort into whatever it is and I can't figure out what it is all in aid of. Dmcq (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC) The gist of it appears to be that he wants to discredit the Simon article as a reliable source, he seems to oscillate back and forth between two basic approaches: 1) That it was poor reporting, and includes invalid facts, and 2) that the sources for the article lied. He claims that he can prove this with his mix of webpages. He says that since the article is used to write material about a "living person" that by WP BLP standards his original research can be taken into account. The end game appears to be the complete removal of any mention of RationalWiki in the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC) RW can stay, but real life identies of RW founders should be removed, per several WP policies. nobs (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I believe the person you are oh-so-worried about summed it up nicely: "People who edit public wikis and make public statements to the press have essentially no legitimate rights to complain about being quoted on their public statements." And as has been said several times here in one form or another: "There are no privacy issues." --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Sounds basically a mild case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing to me then. I'll just continue with having an occasional look and think again in case something turns up or a new thought occurs to me. Dmcq (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't agree to removing mention of Rationalwiki from the article. But I would plea that the sources be quoted accurately, and not parsed or "interpreted", second-guessed as to what the Los Angeles Times reporter was saying. I'm pretty tired of each sentence of the story being examined like State Secrets for hidden meanings and intent. As such it should unequivocally and plainly state why the site was created (vandalism, disruption and refutation of CP), sans explanations of whatever more recent and possibly redeeming activities the good users of that wiki are up to, or changed their focus to. We are talking about a three year old article here, and any section including RW in the CP article should confine itself to what the source said about it back then and nothing more, IMO. To that end I have contacted Stephanie Simon and invited her to comment on this page, and hopefully she will...let the chips fall where they may. Does anyone think that is unfair? --TK-CP (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC) That would be a misrepresentation, though. RW is not a Conservapedia Vandalism Forum, it's a creature of its own. (I'm certainly not there for the sake of CP.) Saying "we have this citation that it was this a few years ago and therefore we must use it" seems to me to be putting sourcing guidelines before article quality - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I disagree about it being a misrepresentation, David, although I see what you are saying. If RW is notable, let its own article detail its history and explain its transformation, if that is what has actually taken place. But for the purposes of this article, and its interaction with CP, based upon the source, which was written when it was, it is all we can go on, what it stated things were like, and what I proposed is indeed accurate, according to the accept source. We either have accepted standards for sources, or we do not. Introducing "explanations" after the fact is revisionism made by people who cannot possibly get into the mind of the Times reporter, right? In any event no rush, and I think we should agree on one thing.....let's see if we can get some edification from the reporter, okay? --TK-CP (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Agree with that. The only problems I had were about 'cyber-vandalism', was that using a Conservapedia definition? I'm pretty happy now that vandalism is what they did do about the time all those editors were removed from Conservapedia and no interpretation is needed, Stephanie Simon reported in a straightforward manner as far as I'm concerned. So I can't see the need to do anything to that section - it is okay by me. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Though trying to make heads or tails of anything nobs says is difficult, he seems to be arguing that the claim RationalWiki was founded after the users involved were blocked on CP is wrong, and he seems to be trying to paste together a bunch of sources to "prove" it. Well, it appears the man widely considered to be RW's founder, Trent Toulouse, was first blocked on March 25, 2007. I believe that is well before RW was founded in any capacity. This is, of course, original research, but since that's what nobs is involved with, I thought I'd fight fire with fire here. Of course, I could be wrong, and this might not be nobs' point at all. As I said, it's hard to tell. -R. fiend (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC) User:Tmtoulouse said here in Wikipedia "the site really doesn't have an owner," [6] and more recently, "Right now the entity that is RW is me." [7] The WP:CON in these Talk Archive pages & Talk:Rationalwiki is, not one, but two, Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, The Register and the LA Times, both got it wrong as to who the owner and founder of Rationalwiki was. And so, no one still knows, even after the criticism of Rationalwiki owners by a longtime respected Wikipedia editor [8] who wrote, It does not reflect well on RationalWiki that the site owners turn a blind eye to this. ... if there are people going in and deliberately inserting the most outrageous material they can, Schlafly and his adminstrators like TK can always say, with some justice, that his site has been compromised by vandals. ....on a much smaller wiki which is apparently already subject to quite heavy infiltration by people who mean no good, how am I to persuade the Conservapedians, as I have been trying to do, that open editing is a viable direction to take? ... But they are unlikely to appreciate the strength of this argument when faced with deliberate and organized attempts to embarrass them by planting parodic content." nobs (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Nobs, what's the problem? The Register indeed made a wrong claim regarding the founder (a claim that was directly denied by the person in question), so we don't use it and its claims here. The LA Times doesn't say who The Founder is. And neither does the Wikipedia article. So why are you making such a big deal about it? --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I feel so special, I am being quote mined! Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC) "Engaged in acts of cyber vandalism" was if my memory is correct, the words of the Times reporter, Dmcq. Many will know I usually refer to such activities as "Internet Terrorism", which is admittedly my own jargon that encompasses many kinds of anti-social Internet behavior, but meant to convey the feeling such things give to others. In full disclosure, I used to know many of her former co-workers and editors at the Los Angeles Times, and she was very highly respected from what I could gather when checking on her back then. She certainly was not a "right-winger" like me, that's for sure! --TK-CP (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC) R fiend, it is a classic "he said/she said" situation. Personally I know the original RW was put up before I blocked most of the RW founders from CP, and had been observing, along with other CP Admins, their activities for a couple of months. But me as a source isn't any more acceptable than you or your fellow RW editors....so I don't know how that is resolved here, under Wikipedia's rules, if the links and postings RobS has presented are unacceptable. --TK-CP (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC) The Primary documents are not "sources" to be cited in the article; they are rather "non-public" information that provides more context on why certain named individuals should not be referenced in mainspace (Applicable Wikipedia policy [9]). It has longtime been established by consensus among RW editors, CP editors, and neutral WP editors, that two WP:RS sources, The Register and the LA Times, were in error. These Primary documents add supporting evidence to the source of that misinformation. The contention is made that a certain medical internist had a dispute with A Schlafly and other CP admins over the alleged increased risk of breast cancer for women who've had an abortion and was banned for disputing that claim. The primary Rationalwiki 1.0 documents reveal quite another tale. The same internist agreed with RW & CP User:Icewedge to "coordinate" sockpuppet vandal attacks, before being banned. So, if by consensus it has been determined the LA Times and Register were in error in reporting on this internist, and this consensus has been establisherd based upon his own say-so, let's apply the same standard once again -- using the now public Rationalwiki 1.0 information. nobs (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) As I said, I don't know what nobs is up to really, which is half the problem. It seems he can't, or is very hesitant to, state clearly what changes he hopes to bring to this article. He seems to favor stuff being taken off-wiki, which isn't really how things are done here. As far as I can tell, he's trying to put together some timeline to show that RW users were banned for forming RW, rather than that RW was formed because of blocks on CP, as Stephanie Simon seems to state. (Either way, it's a violation of stated Conservapedia policy, but I don't think there was ever any intention for CP sysops to be confined by rules of any sort.) I just thought I'd add what facts I can. The date Trent was first blocked is at least an established fact, not a "he said/she said" situation. I'm not trying to get this put into the article, I'm just trying to let nobs know he doesn't seem to have his facts straight. With any luck he's given up already anyway, and we can put this melodrama to rest for good. -R. fiend (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Perhaps I am a better authority than you, R. fiend, as to what CP policy is or isn't, eh? Trent's original blocking wasn't due to RW but his repeated reversions and arguing. That was before my blocking the other RW founders. To my certain knowledge its founder was ColinR, along with Trent. Originally ColinR was the owner, and originator on a hosted site, well before they obtained their own .com and server. --TK-CP (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Already watched by uninvolved admin (Edit Break) So we agree that Trent's blocking had nothing to do with RationalWiki. Now, tell that to nobs, who seems to be arguing that Trent 'n' pals were only blocked from CP because they started some sort of opponent vandal site. (Again, nobs' inability to clearly state his gripe leaves me still uncertain exactly what it is he's arguing.) It now seems we've clearly established that is not true. Now, I know nothing about ColinR, but it seems Peter Lipson's blocks came pretty early as well. I'm not 100% I have the right account here, but it appears to me his first short block was on March 29, 2007 and his first infinite block came on April 10th. This isn't really important, I realize, but if nobs' aim is to discredit the Simon article by asserting she got the chronology wrong on this minor point, then I think we can put the matter to rest. In the meantime, until one of you can point out what is factually incorrect, POV, or given undue weight in this article, as well as a proposal for improving it, I'm not sure we have much to discuss. -R. fiend (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone is trolling this discussion

(Sorry to post a topic not directly related to article improvement here, but this is the one place where users who need to know this will see it.)

I have had a number of emails claiming they have received an email from "TK-CP" that states that TK is meeting with me and Jimbo Wales to discuss this article and RW, and that the recipient's WP account is in danger of being suspended or deleted.

This is, of course, entirely false.

I am sure TK-CP would not send out any such ridiculous claims, so I assume someone is trolling this discussion. People's WP accounts don't get suspended just for editing at another wiki. This just doesn't happen.

So if you get an email like this, you shouldn't worry. Though you may wish to forward it to the Arbitration Committe or the functionaries list, because this sort of intimidation is completely unacceptable at Wikipedia. I've also emailed TK to alert him this is happening - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with content. The notification is relevent, take up the rest with the appropriate authorities Hipocrite (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, if these mails were sent through WP's mailing system, it should (theoretically) be possible to find out which account (and which IP) sent them. In that case, I'd definitely recommend forwarding these mails (with header and all) to officials so they can sort it out. Mails sent through Wikipedia mails have the "This e-mail was sent by user '[name]' on the English Wikipedia to user '[yourname]'." thing under the text, and the headers should show Wikimedia identifiers in the "Return-Path" and "Received" fields at least. (This shows how to view the header info in Yahoo/Hotmail/GMail - I don't know if it still works for all systems, but it did work for my Hotmail account. If you got a client like Thunderbird, something along the lines of "View -> Message Source" should work.) Let's get this sorted out - this thing is a trainwreck already, the last thing we need is intimidation and/or impersonation. (For what it's worth, I didn't get any mail.) --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC) TK has just emailed me to say "Yes, very clever. Tell Trent he will soon know the very real pain he has put me through for three years. Thanks." (Quoting because he did say to pass it on.) This suggests his problems with RationalWiki as cited on this page are in fact nothing to do with this Wikipedia article, and so any discussion here by him of RationalWiki is not really in the right venue at all - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for alerting me, David, if only post-facto. I know you will promptly forward all those emails to me so I can turn them over to the proper authorities, right? I mean after all, in the interest of transparency and getting to the source of this fraud, not only perpetrated against Wikipedia, it is also a very real fraud against me, and must be dealt with immediately. So if you haven't already forwarded the original emails on to me, please do so. And I was told (via email) by someone named Dominic that the investigation of my outing complaint is being handled by something called arbcom-audit-en, so perhaps you should forward copies of those emails there as well. I can give you the email address the message was sent from privately, if you need it. This isn't a new situation, these sort of forged emails and screen shots, it has been going on for several years now. I'm only sorry apparently innocent Wikipedia editors are now being subjected to harassment by these vandals. Oh, by the way, I only thought you were bullshitting me, as I had a email earlier, from Trent apparently, threatening me with investigation by private detectives, knocks on my door, late night phone calls and court orders from his editors. And I did not say you could pass that on, either. Anyone who wants a copy of my email to David Gerard or Tmtolouse, or theirs to me, let me know. Like I already said, this is the typical Rationalwiki modus. --TK-CP (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I haven't got copies of the full emails-with-headers making these claims as yet, will be forwarding appropriately when I do - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Well you should have a copy of my email to you, where I asked you to publicly disclose it, right? Please forward it on to the audit committee and me, if you would be so kind, David. Thanks! --TK-CP (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I took the "tell Trent" as you wanting it generally known. Although trying to privately threaten someone (even via someone else) over a Wikipedia matter is not really the done thing and should arguably be publicised - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, one can readily understand your ignorance of procedure, such as bringing this matter here, David. There are just so many rules to sort out, one can forgive your confusion, certainly. The main thing is you have helped bring this out in the open, and will soon be producing the emails purportedly sent by me, to those several Wikipedia editors, with the full headers, and I can file a police report about it and post it on my user page as a deterrent to whatever vandals have had a hand in this. Well, I guess you won't know that they really exist until you actually get the emails you so promptly announced here, right? --TK-CP (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I said (top of this section) that I couldn't imagine you'd send such emails - I posted about this here at all so that other editors wouldn't feel intimidated by such emails. Are you asking me for emails you didn't send that you can take to the police to show them something you didn't send? It's not at all clear what you're asking for here. Please do clarify - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC) David, in America impersonation is a serious crime, a felony in most jurisdictions. So if someone, even on the Internet, pretends to be you or me, that is indeed a serious crime, therefore justice must be served. I am certain you will agree. That is why it is so important that since you have such great concern, as you rightfully should, that you expeditiously retrieve the original emails from those numerous emails from the editors that reported them to you, as well as their user names, if only to Arbcom, but I should also be informed so I can pass their names on to the authorities. Likewise if someone made this all up, and involved you in this sordid mess, transparency demands they be exposed. --TK-CP (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Just as a side note, TK: The arbcom-audit-en mailing list is used for internal discussion by the Audit Subcommittee (emphasis mine). So no, those mails likely shouldn't be forwarded to you. --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Just as another side-note, Sid: All complaints about the use of CheckUser or Oversight privileges received by the Committee shall be referred to the Audit Subcommittee by forwarding the complaint to the subcommittee's mailing list (arbcom-audit-en‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org). [10] I properly listed the procedure on the committee's own page which you skipped over or missed, apparently. --TK-CP (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Mh, my bad, misread your initial post (though now I'm not quite sure what these mails have to do with your outing complaint). Guess my brain was too busy parsing all your accusations against us. :) --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC) TK-CP, while it's your choice whether you want to file a police report, I doubt anything would come of it. In fact it seems reminiscent of the FBI fiasco over at Conservapedia. It's unlikely you can claim to have suffered any tangible damages, and it would be very difficult to prove if you had. Likewise, I'm not sure you can necessarily make the claim that someone who uses your internet moniker is committing a felony. This sounds like a pretty serious WP issue, but not a very serious legal one. Again, you can do what you want. -R. fiend (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC) TK-CP seems like a troll to me. Falcon8765 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)