Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 15

Blatant lies and talk page deletion

There was a lengthy section of this talk page called "blatant lies," and now it is gone. Wikipedia policy states quite clearly NOT to delete any content on the talk pages. To whoever vandalized the talk page (you know who you are), don't ever do that again. Anyway, I can't remember most of what was on this section, but what I said was that in Conservapedia's two-sentence article on Rosa Luxemburg, they said she was a terrorist. This is completely untrue. A terrorist is someone who uses fear and violence against civilians to orchestrate a response from the government or the civilians themselves. Rosa Luxemburg called herself a revolutionary, and a revolutionary is someone who organizes a mass movement of civilians to replace the government. Commissarusa (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

First, new discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top. I took the liberty of moving this post for that reason. Second, actually, wikipedia policy states that anything posted on the talk page that doesn't involve improvement of the article may be removed without question. Technically, I could have just deleted your comment instead of responding to it. Third, I didn't look in the article to see what you are talking about, but if Conservapedia calls someone a terrorist, then we report that conservapedia calls someone a terrorist. It is possible to then elaborate on exactly why said person is not actually a terrorist, but to say that conservapedia doesn't call her a terrorist when they actually do would be a falsehood.Farsight001 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

The article states, "the articles about conservative politicians, such as Republican former US president Ronald Reagan, Joseph McCarthy, and former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher have been observed as praising their respective subjects.[13][48] " Citations are Simon, Stephanie (2007-06-22). "A conservative's answer to Wikipedia". Los Angeles Times. [1] and Read, Brock (March 2, 2007) "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing" Chronicle of Higher Education. The Brock article is a dead link but here is the original cite. [2] Neither article mentions Joseph Mccarthy. nobs (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think COI guidelines prohibit you from fixing dead links and making other non-controversial edits. I fixed the url and removed McCarthy. Rees11 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet Encyclopedia Project

Is Conservapedia still just an ancyclopedia project, has it not moved on to be more of a political/ideological blog? KenDenier (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says that, then please put it in the article. If not, don't. if you're just wondering aloud, then please remember this talk page is not a forum. And denying Ken is futile, btw. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"brusque and offensive"

The article states, "Lenski...felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive..." Two days ago several RationalWiki editors admitted on Rationalwiki they were responsible for the "brusque and offensive" comments. [3] This article states,"According to an article published in the LA Times in 2007, 'From there, they (Lipson and his fellow [RationalWiki] editors) monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.'"

Can a neutral editor review this material to determine if it violates NPOV. (Disclosure: I am a Conservapedia sysop). Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The link to RW is to a quote from a Conservapedia "secret" cabal group. Not anything to do with what any Rationalwikians said. The Lenski affair was in 2008, actually after "Lipson" had ceased to edit at RW. Your complaints are groundless. SpeckledHen (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The words actually used by Lenski were: "rude tone and uninformed content" So amendment could be required. SpeckledHen (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

TY. Let me respectfully disagree. The link provided [4] is to a discussion about leaked information from a private Conservapedia mailing list ("secret" cabal, as has been described}. A question is asked,

• Questioner: Ah, so can we say deceit was employed here, and that by some Ratwikians, hmm?
• First responder: I'd be more surprised if that wasn't true.
• Questioner: Could any of these Ratwikians comments be described as "brusque and offensive" ?
• Second resoponder: Yes, deceit was employed by RWians, and it was gratefully embraced by Andy, who now had an excuse to carry on with his obsession, despite being warned and knowing of where the signatories came from.
• Third responder; I should clarify that if people who are also members of RationalWiki decided to do this - via sockpuppetry or otherwise - it was their own doing. RW as a site doesn't condone this sort of thing; it's immature and counter-productive. Although I would be almost certain that anyone involved in doing this would have got their news from RW and the incident did highlight Schlafly's ego-centric tendencies very, very nicely. The fact is, Schlafly was an idiot to send the letter and this demonstrates that many of his inner circle has expressed their misgivings very, very clearly and were subsequently ignored.
• Fourth responder: Everyone knows we have off-site discussion groups to organize and plot our vandalism.
• Second responder: I propose we call our next secret site 'The Bible Blues'.
• Fifth responder: More liberal deceit from a member of the vandal site cabal. As a frequent poster on the supersecretforumwherewetalkaboutdeceitz, you ought to know that Teh Bible Blues is the name for our semisupersecretforumwherewetalkaboutdeceitz. [End]

Summary: Five longtime Rationalwiki editors all admitting to direct knowledge of Ratikonalwiki editors "using deceit" to implant "brusque and offensive" material about Lenski.

The Wikipedia article states, "Lenski replied...that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit."

Direct evidence has now been submitted Rationalwiki editors, (as L.A. Times reporter Stephanie Simon reported, "From there [Rationalwiki], they (Lipson and his fellow editors) monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism), have taken responsibility for comments Prof. Lenski regarded as brusque, offensive, and deceitful. This article needs to be reviewed, once again, for factual and NPOV errors. Thank you. nobs (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow Nobs01, assuming good faith, what on Earth are you talking about? Huw Powell (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Assuming good faith, I have posted these concerns at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Talk:Conservapedia.23.22brusque_and_offensive.22. Please engage with me there. Thank you. nobs (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, of the five editors in the link you gave (myself, Armondikov, Nutty, CR and NU) only Armondikov was a significant member of RW at the time; CR had signed up, but does not appear to have participated much until late September. Secondly, I don't see any admissions that RWians inserted 'brusque and offensive' comments; as far as I know, RWian socks merely added their names to the list of people supporting Andy sending the letter. Andy, despite knowing where these signatories came from, gratefully accepted the signatures and used them to overrule several sysops who were having reservations about the idea. Also, looking through the Lenksi Dialog at CP I can't see any 'brusque and offensive' comments on the talk page, where the letter was discussed. EddyJP (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the Fifth Responder. My intent wasn't to "admit" anything but to make fun of you (nobs/RobS) and others who continue to assert there's some conspiracy. Why is this being discussed on WP again? -- Nutty Roux 98.226.15.58 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'm totally confused. How on earth can someone conclude from a positive answer (which I even fail to see) to the question Could any of these Ratwikians comments be described as "brusque and offensive" that "all brusque and offensive comments were made by Ratwikikans" as the sentence Two days ago several RationalWiki editors admitted on Rationalwiki they were responsible for the "brusque and offensive" comments. implies. And how does it reflect on the management of conservapedia (which is otherwise very active) not to react on these "brusque and offensive" comments? DiEb (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC) The facts are correctly stated in the article

• There were "brusque and offensive" comments on the site
• Lenksi was offended by them

It is less important that not all of these comments were made by upright conservapedians, more important is that the management didn't take measures against the comments - and the commentators (at least not for their comments). DiEb (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article merely says that Lenski found many comments on CP to be offensive; it doesn't matter who made them. Anyone who edits on CP is by definition a CP editor, so any claim that the comments don't count because they were made by Rationalwikians pretending to be Conservapedians is a non-starter. Perhaps we can discuss adding a bit about Rationalwikians taking credit for some of the comments in an effort to discredit Schlafly and CP, but that might start to enter into the realm of original research. It also might plug RW more than certain editors would wish to do. -R. fiend (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't know which comments he found offensive. We don't know if the people at RationalWiki that imply they made some comments there actually did. Now if other editors on Conservapedia disowned those comments at the time that would be actual evidence of their not wanting to be associated with offensive comments. Wikipedia has to work with actual real documentation not conjecture. Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We do know Peter Lipson admitted to helping start rationalwiki for the purpose to engage in acts of cyber-vandalism. We do know one of Peter Lipson's first acts in RW was this screed. [5] We know this screed has nothing to do whatsoever with the medical qualifications Lipson represented to the L.A. Times cited in this entry. We know RW vandals have a long history of sockpuppetry to vandalize and control content of this page. We know the only link to RationalWiki is in the Peter Lipson subheading. We know Lipson certainly could fit the definition of a questionable or dubious source. We know this may be self-promotion of rationalwiki and possibly Lipson. We know Lipson is non-notable, other than his own own medical practice and Lipson being cited alongside Jimbo Wales and Dr. Lenski. That certainly is WP:UNDUE for a non-notable, dubious critic. nobs (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lipson is not being cited as a source, the LA Times is. Lipson himself doesn't have to be notable to have this item included. I don't find the coverage undue but I suppose that's somewhat subjective. As the only critic who has started a satire site and admitted to vandalizing Conservapedia I think he deserves inclusion. Rees11 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read the LA Times bit and that allegation looks problematic just citing it. It says:

'After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia.

And -- by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.

We do not know what 'they' refers to, some editors of RationalWIki, or Lipson in particular. It doesn't say it was set up to do vandalism. And it doesn't give any evidence of all this, not even a quote. have we got better evidence? Second or third hand stuff like that is very iffy. Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"They" obviously refers to "Lipson and several other editors" and the LA Times must be considered a reliable source, so we don't need any other evidence. Rees11 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ty. We've made progress. This WP entry has been protected, deleted and recreated, several times since 2007 when the LA Times article appeared. At CP, we've blocked over 10,000 accounts in three years, originating with a core of about two dozen RationalWiki users, commonly dubbed "ratvandals." And Rationalwiki documents much of this history. This current version was written by these Rationalwikians.

Early last year, a story was widely disseminated about a "Conservapedia Hit List". [6] This was allegedly a "hit list" of US Senators who were marked for assassination in states with Republican Governors. A Rationalwiki editor at some pointed admitted he was the source (User:Tony Sidaway gives a good the summary of the incident). The same vandalism has again occurred in the Lenski dialogue. Rationalwiki editers, from the site Lipson told the LA Times was created to engage in cyber-vandalism, were the source of comments Dr. Lenski regarded offensive.

Both Lenski & Lipson are cited as critics in this article. Lenski's criticism originated with ratvandals Lipson admitted was one the purposes of starting the site. Both critics are cited alongside Jimbo Wales. What's wrong with this picture? nobs (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? Lenski made it clear he thought Andy was an ignorant ass, and accused him and other editors at CP of being obnoxious morons. Whether or not some of those moron were parodists from RW is irrelevant (though certainly some were). Try as you might, you can't write this off as a Rationalwiki prank. Andy made an ass of himself, and was anxious to do so. There's no getting around that. -R. fiend (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not the issue under discussion here. The issue is whether or not Peter Lipson is a notable or reliable critic of CP's editorial policies. Peter Lipson is the author of this defamatory screed posted on RW. [7]

WP:COI#Defending_interests states:

• it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution

meaning an institution, not just a person, can be defamed.

• An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. (Note: This entry has been deleted and recreated numerous times, each time with socks, apparently, reclaiming ownership of the article).

Lipson's unsupported screed was posted at RW shortly after the sites creation in the timeframe of the LA Times article. Lipson has no other internet presence other than his practice of internal medicine, yet he has a celebrated ranking as an authoritive critic of CP right next to Jimbo Wales. His screed -- his real intent, has nothing to do whatsoever with the credentials cited in the L.A. Times as an authority on breast cancer. And inserting this subsection was the method used by RW to link WP to thier website. nobs (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So it does have nothing to do with Lenski. Alright then. But anyway, as someone else said, we're referencing the LA Times, not Lipson's blog. If you want to remove all references to Lipson you can try to make that case. We can start by removing any reference to RationalWiki as a vandal site. -R. fiend (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what I'm asking. I can't do it myself because of COI. nobs (talk)

I'm asking the subhead using Peter Lipson's name be removed; and if reference to Peter Lipson is to remain, he not be elevated as a notable and credible source on CP's editorial policy and breast cancer. The evidence shows he a partisan political critc who confesses to vandalism, and is the source of inflamitory, and defamatory misinformation. nobs (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No sir. The evidence merely reflects that you object to his characterization of your little fiefdom, that you like using inflammatory language to describe your opponents, and that Lipson "confessed" to wiki vandalism, which is a very special case of vandalism in general. You've vandalized RW far more often by your own definition of the word. Get over yourself. 98.226.15.58 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure: The record will show I am also a Rationalwiki sysop. I have tried on numerous occassions to gain concensus for the deletion of Lipson's anti-Conservapedia screed for years. I've debated major points in Lipson's essay with Lipson, and he walked away from the discussion evidently because he could not maintain his position. I've had the power as a RW sysop to delete it myself, but have not done so without concensus.

I've known virtually all of RW founders since its inception, and I probably alone among CP sysops, enjoy a civil relationship with most of them. I think many respect me because of a willingness to engage in matters of mutual importance. nobs (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the strangest opinion I've ever read; since when has "despise" been interpreted as "respect"? SpeckledHen (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there anyone, anywhere on this wiki who removes needless hate talk like above? It wasn't on-point, nor was it about the topic at hand, and lowers the level of dialog on Wikipedia even more. The failure to remove such comments is of itself a comment on the lack of standards here. --TK-CP (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

TK, you're to harsh to Nobs! But again, let's look at the facts:

• Lenski states in the introduction of his second letter I tried to be polite, civil and respectful in my reply to your first email, despite its rude tone and uninformed content. Given the continued rudeness of your second email, and the willfully ignorant and slanderous content on your website, my second response will be less polite.

Who wrote the second letter? It's signed Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D. And user Aschlafly (most probably not a RW sock, as he is the founder of Conservapedia) made some comments which may be have seen as willfully ignorant and slanderous like

• At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive”.--Aschlafly 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

• If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy. --Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

• Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data. --Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

• In other words, you seem to be saying the latest paper was not given a thorough, independent peer review. I agree with that analysis. In fact, it probably "sailed through" without any meaningful peer review at all, despite published journal procedures claiming to require meaningful peer review.--Aschlafly 11:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Face it: the Lenski - dialogue is a brainchild of Andrew Schlafly, who set the tone of it, too. Andrew Schlafly may have been open to encouragement from some members of RationalWiki, but he digged this hole himself. DiEb (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're not contesting the reliability of the LA Times, but rather arguing that the Lipson section should be removed because Lipson has attacked CP? I don't find that a compelling argument at all. Would you also remove the article on Charles J. Guiteau? My opinion is that the Lipson section should stay. Rees11 (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has suggested that the Lipson section should go. It's factual as far as I can see. The only relevant discussion here has been about the Lenski letters being promoted by RationalWiki, which is obviously a red herring. SpeckledHen (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has gone from being about Lenski to about removal of the Lipson section. (Someone seems to have a hard time staying on topic.) While I don't think the Lipson section should be removed, I wouldn't mind seeing it renamed. Lipson himself isn't terribly notable or important. Maybe the heading should read RationalWiki? -R. fiend (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And about Lipson and the LA article again. I believe this is Lipson, is this true? And if so he says he did not set up RationalWiki. Is this true or is the LA article the one we should believe? If the LA article is not right on that then have we other evidence of Lipson doing vandalism? Personally I have very little time for vandals and would like this cleared up one way or the other. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dmcq. You appear to see the problem. Lipson's user page says,

• "The site seems to represent something I abhor, but attracted a large number of people of all political stripes who felt compelled to inject truth into the mix. "[8] links to this discussionon where Lipson says,
• My politics, when I either agree or disagree with something here, are irrelevant.' But Lipson finds a receptive audience for his politics with his defamatory screed at RW. [9]

So, the section baring Peter Lipson's name, with the reference to him solely as a doctor of internal medicine makes no mention of his extreme, unfounded, and inflamitory political views. If the LA TImes is incorrect in stating Lipson helped start RW, his credentials have certainly been used to inspire an army of younger trolls and vandals who feel justified in attacking and vandalizing the site. And Lipson certainly was with RW from its beginnings.

WP:COI#Defending_interests states:

• it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution Can we pleaase get some help? Thank you. nobs (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As you seem to have moved on to the second part of your initial complaint, may I assume that you have no problem any longer with the sentence: Lenski replied again that the relevant data was already in the paper, that the "raw data" were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit. ?

That would be a nice progress - and we could move on without the evocation of upper authorities... DiEb (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What "extreme, unfounded, and inflamitory political views"? He butted heads with Andrew Schlafly about the whole "Abortions cause breast cancer!" thing, and that's pretty much it. And in the end, Andy prevailed in pushing his view as truth.

If you feel the need to make accusations against people, give us evidence. Or are you saying that "I have always been interested in how people bend the truth to suit their particular needs, so when I heard about a site called 'Conservapedia', I had to check it out. I began editing, and rapidly found my worst fears confirmed, but also some of my greatest hopes. The site seems to represent something I abhor, but attracted a large number of people of all political stripes who felt compelled to inject truth into the mix." is that extreme view? Is it bad to try to stop people from completely misrepresenting matters of science, religion or politics? Please elaborate.

And in what way did RW use his credentials to inspite trolls and vandals? Wha? Your accusations get more bizarre, and it's about time you provide some substance. Right now. This isn't a public forum to vent your conspiracy theories.

RationalWiki had been a place founded by disillusioned CP members, for disillusioned CP members, period. It possibly would've dropped into obscurity if certain CP sysops hadn't announced they'd send copies of silly discussions to the FBI... or if TK hadn't just randomly banned a ton of innocent accounts around the same time. Dr. Lipson had been among the first members, just like me. Nobody of us used any credentials to lure in others or to inspire anybody to do something.

The thing that drove tons of members to us (especially after the Great Purge and once we went public with RW 2.0) was Conservapedia itself. Conservapedia sysops dictated rules, but only applied them whenever it suited them, often interpreting them in new ways or simply making up their own ones (posting them on their own user page and applying them retroactively). Another aspect that makes people assume the view that CP deserves to be vandalized is that Andy is always right by definition (see also: Jesus disproves relativity, Obama is a Muslim with mind control power, Dawkins never was a professor, etc.) and that arguing against Andy's believes or his pet projects (Lenski Affair, Conservative Bible Project) equals insubordination.

And this isn't just the view of liberal vandals - CP sysops like Philip J. Rayment or CPAdmin1 also saw these problems... and were bullied out of the group <irony>for advocating that rules should be applied consistently and for pointing out that the hostile "Follow the leader!"/"Do as I say, not as I do!" atmosphere drove people from CP to RW.</irony> Oh, and for arguing that one can be a conservative while still being in favor of gun control, in Philip's case.

Rob, you're wasting everybody's time here. You bait people with some "admission" about Lenski, then suddenly swerve over to Dr. Lipson and make wild accusations about him. Time to speak clearly: What does he do? What extreme views does he have? (Edit to add: Nevermind, I see that was yet another tangent that didn't have anything to do with anything, posted with the sole purpose of making Dr. Lipson look bad.) And what does this have to do with "brusque and offensive" comments? And please, go beyond just making assertions and accusations. This is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. We actually would like to see sources and details. --Sid 3050 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Register

[Unindent] The Register article states,

• Lipson duly enlisted other disgruntled editors and started RationalWiki

User:Tony Sidaway, a respected longtime Wikipedia contributor noted after the "Hit List" subterfuge,

It does not reflect well on RationalWiki that the site owners turn a blind eye ...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. In this case, despite my initial feelings about the matter, TK was right and I was wrong.

Sidaway goes on,

I am frustrated by this culture of vandalism and parody. My history on Wikipedia where we have successfully overwhelmed all attempts to cause such harm has given me a keen appreciation of the advantages of open editing, but 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?...they are unlikely to appreciate the strength of this argument when faced with deliberate and organized attempts to embarrass them by planting parodic content. [10]

So Lipson is more than a medical doctor as represented in this entry, and evidently Wikipedia itself has not overwhelmed Lipson's vandals who control the content of this particular entry. nobs (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

...what?

So we've moved from Lenski to Lipson to the Hitlist now?

Please just tell us what you would change to what in the article instead of going on endless accusation tangents. This is getting silly.

And you think RationalWiki controls the content of this article? HA! HAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAA! Quick! Put it on Bias On Wikipedia! --Sid 3050 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Still not really following what you're saying. Is your beef with who founded RationalWiki? If so, it appears the Times somewhat overstated Lipson's involvement, and that he was an initial member, not founder (according to RW itself I believe). The phrasing on that as it stands seems good enough. (It certainly isn't the first time a newspaper got a detail wrong.) I don't see what your point is with the "Hit List". If it was vandalism, why did Conservapedia let it stand so long? Besides, I don't even see it mentioned in this article so I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. Can you please just state clearly and plainly what changes you are proposing to the article? Or are you just here to complain? -R. fiend (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Register was quoting the LA Times so it is hardly independent confirmation of the LA story. I think we have to go by Lipson's own statement since there is evidence the LA Times article is wrong in this area. I don't see how this article can credibly continue quoting the LA article, is there some wording for 'reliable sources' which state provably wrong things? At best we have the statement by Lipson that he would have been pleased if he had actually helped found RationalWiki like the Register said. Dmcq (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dmcq. I think your reading of both the L.A. Times and the Register may be correct, however there is no doubt Lipson was among the first contributors who started RW. And quoting the L.A. Times is the vehicle that has been used to provide a direct link to Rationalwiki's website. nobs (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you are aware that this article and its author are directly approved by Conservapedia, right?

• Guess who provided a handy link to it on CP's article on Stephanie Simon? YOU!
• CP Main Page, September 2008: "'Palin's Entry Gives GOP Ticket Shot at Capturing the Youth Vote,' is an article in the Wall Street Journal by ... Stephanie Simon, the reporter who wrote a widely published article about Conservapedia in 2007."
• CP Main Page, January 2009: "'It's an astonishing fact that year after year, the Bible is the best-selling book in America -- even though 90% of households already have at least one copy.' So writes Stephanie Simon for the Wall Street Journal, where this talented reporter seems to be after covering Conservapedia last year for the L.A. Times."

And if memory serves correctly, at least one CP sysop recently paraded it around on this talk page to be call people "sysops of a known vandal site" or something. So it's beyond puzzling that you now seemingly oppose including this source. Just as it's puzzling that you oppose linking to RationalWiki, which has been namedropped and linked several times by now - often by you. I'm not endorsing or opposing you right now, mostly because I'm not sure anymore what you want or why you want it. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the discussions around the decision to speedy delete RW entry here, nor care to engage. My focus is on the qualifications of Peter Lipson to be cited along side Jimbo Wales in the "Reception" section after Lipson published a defamatory screed [11] on a website Wikipedia cites was founded by him. At a bare minimum, the Lispon section violates NPOV for not stating his political views, and only qualifies him as doctor of internal medicine. It should be unproblematic to defend an instituition defamed by Peter Lipson. nobs (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So you wish something that is NPOV and backed by a RS removed on the basis that the person quoted wrote something you don't like somewhere else? The source doesn't say anything about Lipson's political views, wouldn't that be OR then? -- Nx / talk 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The section echoes what is covered by a reliable source. You seem to want to include Original Research. I admit I'm not the most active or rule-versed editor here, but I believe there is a rule against this. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is another issue regarding the factual accuracy of the L.A. Times and Register articles; there are issues developing for the restored RationalWiki entry. surely, at a minimum we can conclude this Peter Lipson subsection is in dispute. As per my declared COI's, and WP policies in place to protect living persons and institutions from defamation, I should be able to get a neutral administrator to rehang the dispute tag in this subsection while these issues are civilly discussed and sorted out. Thank you. nobs (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the defamation you object to? -- Nx / talk 19:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Lipson, founder of RationalWiki according to Wikipedia, is the author of this defamatory smear of Conservapedia. [12] nobs (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that "smear" located on Wikipedia? -- Nx / talk 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lipson criticism is more than that as a doctor of internal medicine, as this entry states. And we have reason to beleive, per WP:RS, Lipson likewise, is more than a doctor of internal medicine. nobs (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This article does not state what kind of criticism RationalWiki provides. -- Nx / talk 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article only qualifies Lipson as a doctor of internal medicine. If Lispon indeed is the founder of RationalWiki, as the L.A. Times, The Register and Wikipedia all state, his second entry on his user page in Rationalwiki under "Why Am I here" outlines his defamatory screed later cut and pasted into essay form. [13] His agenda clearly is political, and not just "refuting crank science" as RW maintains. nobs (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited the Wikipedia RW article to reflect what the LA Times article actually says (IIRC, fixing such errors is allowed even with a COI): That Lipson is one of the first members of RW and that he "started" RW merely in that sense, just like Andy's homeschoolers "started" CP. (I "started" RationalWiki in the same sense, are you going to call ME the founder now?) Notice how this article doesn't say that CP was started by homeschoolers, it says that it was started by Andy Schlafly. This article also doesn't say that Lipson is the founder of RationalWiki. Lipson's RW profile explicitly says that he's not the founder of RW. Nobody on RW says that it was founded by Lipson. The Register article, the (to the best of my knowledge) only source for your claim, wrongly paraphrases the LA Times. It's just you who suddenly wants to make this personal by including Original Research to assign a completely unnecessary political label. Lipson's conflict with Andy - who has no medical training I am aware of - was over medicine, not politics. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

[Unindent] TY. The changes made til now, including the renamed subhead & POV tag are appreciated. I'm taking a break for a few hours. Again, thanks to all. nobs (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV - Peter Lipson

I've hung the {peacock} tag in the ==Peter Lipson== section, although it refers to "article;" the alternative would be the {hoax} tag which says, "article or section." I'm not certain which to use. Thank you. nobs (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have found the correct tag {POV-section}. nobs (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is your gripe with that section? The LA Times states

Dr. Peter A. Lipson, an internist in Southfield, Mich., repeatedly tried to amend an article on breast cancer to tone down Conservapedia's claim that abortion raises a woman's risk. The site's administrators, including Schlafly, questioned his credentials and shut off debate."

After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com.

The section almost completely echoes this and was a RS last time I checked. What would you change? --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

nobs: If you could sum it up in 20 words or less I would appreciate it. And please refrain from editing the article directly except for non-controversial edits like fixing dead links. Rees11 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Register article states,

• Lipson duly enlisted other disgruntled editors and started RationalWiki

Tony Sidaway states,

• It does not reflect well on RationalWiki that the site owners turn a blind eye to... people going in and deliberately inserting the most outrageous material nobs (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you suggesting we quote Tony Sidaway as a reliable source? -R. fiend (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the Register article incorrectly paraphrases the Times. Lipson didn't enlist anybody, and he didn't start RationalWiki. He had been an early member (from what I recall - this is three-year-old stuff), and that's it. And you once again bring up the Hitlist, which had been implicitly endorsed by CP sysops (they had edited it and didn't find fault with the content, IIRC) and had only been erased the moment someone shone the spotlight onto it. Oh, and it isn't part of the article and has nothing to do with Lipson. --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the Template tag has been reported to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Talk:Conservapedia.23.22brusque_and_offensive.22. nobs (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't realize The Register story was bad when I added it (was looking at the wrong section of this talk, since it was linked from the NPOV report). If it's factually inaccurate we could note that he is an early participant, but not a founder with another reference. In any event, linking to the RationalWiki main page was pointless, so I wiki-linked to the article on RationalWiki. I'm not seeing a big POV issue in any event, just a potential factual discrepancy. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just realized that RationalWiki itself was redirecting to this section, which makes no sense at all. I've restored an earlier version of the page which appears to be okay (if a bit overly focused on the Conservapedia rivalry). Either way, it's better that a redirect to a tiny section of a article with tertiary relevance. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on RationalWiki accredits Peter Lipson as the founder. Can we get the {NPOV - section} tag, or a factual innaccuracy tag rehung in the Lipson section of this entry restored, please? nobs (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was just restored by me, and I added the factual accuracy tag myself due to the questions raised here. I'm inclined to shorten the Lipton section and remove most of the details that you disagree with; any factual accuracy issues can be hashed out at the RationalWiki article. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend factual innacurracies in the RW entry. It should be unproblematic to hang {NPOV - section} in this entry to defend an institution under defamatory attack by Lipson personally [14] Can the {NPOV -section} tag be restored, please? nobs (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What does an essay posted on RationalWiki have to do with Wikipedia? -- Nx / talk 18:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI#Defending_interests states,

• In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests.. This, I submit, is one such case. nobs (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that refers to material in a Wikipedia article. The material you object to is not on Wikipedia. -- Nx / talk 18:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As a heads-up, I've put up a notice on RW to see if anybody still remembers the pros and cons for the "turn to redirect" decision. Personally, I'm really not sure about Notability, so a few extra eyes now might spare us some drama later on. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

neutrality

Might I suggest that every effort is made to make this article as neutral and factual as possible. As somebody who thinks Conservapedia is a ridiculous website, I would say the best way to contrast its bias and propogandist nature is to make this article as fair and unopinionated as possible (something which I'm afraid it hasn't been in places), which would demonstrate how Wikipedia is a much more mature and rational tool. 89.243.44.154 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen of Conservapedia, to make this article seem fair and balanced, you would actually have to inject substantial bias in favour of Conservapedia. The article, in its current form, seems, if anything, slightly biased in that direction. However, as has already been noted, in order to include the things that would remove that slight bias, Wikipedia rules regarding reliable sources and original research would have to be disregarded. 92.23.17.223 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Commercial?

Why does the infobox say "Commercial: no" when it's a dotcom? Rees11 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably 'cause there's no cash transaction involved at all? "Dotcom" is meaningless. SpeckledHen (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly is a homeschool teacher and the site is part of his for profit home school teaching business. According to Schlafly.--216.67.4.221 (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

is that enough to make it commercial? CP doesn't sell anything and you don't have to pay to join. The only money that changes hands is offline, in Schlafly's school fees. I don't see how that would make CP a commercial site. the .com suffix is incidental - anyone starting a website may choose any suffix they wish. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Back in Web 1.0 there were plenty of sites put up by businesses that provide information but weren't selling anything. People enroll in the courses through the site, the courses are taught on the site, homework is submitted and graded through the site. Take for instance this website (I looked up well drilling figuring no one would sell it over the net and this was what google kicked back) They don't collect fees, you don't have to pay to access the site, the only money that changes hands happens in real life. I do agree the the .com doesn't make it commercial. --216.67.4.221 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV (March 2010)

First of all, I have a WP:COI in this which is why my changes to the article have been minimal. However, I've noticed that at least 75% of this article references criticism. That doesn't seem neutral to me. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

...feel free to supply positive Reliable Sources? This issue had been noted since the first days of this article, and the awkward answer had been "That's pretty much all there is...". Since CP went online, the widespread reaction had been criticism. With things like the Conservative Bible Project, even the conservative sources criticized it. I'm not terribly rule-versed, so take this with a grain of salt, but NPOV doesn't mean Equal Weight. I guess WP:WEIGHT applies here? --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a concrete proposal, with specifics of what is to be removed or added. Rees11 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sid is absolutely right. WP:WEIGHT is exactly what applies. There are nearly no sources (liberal, conservative or otherwise) which discuss CP in a positive light especially within the past year. The Concerned Woman of America is pretty much the only major group that has praised the project and that was only a brief write up from two years. On the other hand, if you have reliable sources which are positive about CP we could probably work them in. --Leivick (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We have presented evidence on this page much of this criticism of CP over the past year was inserted by RationalWiki parodists in both the "Hit List" and "Lenski" incidents. nobs (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(a) Rob, this is about reliable sources, several of which are dated roughly 2007, before RationalWiki even existed in its current form.

(b) CP sysops implicitly approved of the "Hit List" (an incident that is not even mentioned in the article from what I saw!) entry by editing it like any other article. It was only removed when people shone a spotlight on it. The Lenski thing was Andy's idea. He was the one who defended his "Send a letter and demand the data!" idea against his sysops. The ballot-stuffing had been utterly transparent - several people literally came out of nowhere to pat Andy's back. Several sysops saw right through it, but Andy Schlafly personally approved of it. Andy wrote the letters, and Andy made several of the more idiotic accusations. And even the single-purpose accounts were verifably not all from RW - LarryFarma, a Holocaust revisionist joined just for this discussion and even got Edit Rights within four days. Additionally, several people actually argued against Andy - and guess where they came from (or where they went after being banhammered)!

(c) Did RW create a YEC-friendly wiki that bills itself as promoting The Truth? No. Did RW accuse Wikipedia of liberal bias? No. Did RW come up with the Conservative Bible Project? No. Did RW think of sending a letter to Lenski? No. Did RW make all the entries that blame liberals for everything and that claim that everything liberal is bad? No. Did RW insert claims like "Jesus healing some guy far away disproves relativity"? No. Did RW post the infamous HitWin picture that had been on CP's main page? No. Is RW responsible for creating rules that discourage compassion (MYOB) and smack down discussions (90/10)? No. Did RW get the brilliant idea to apply these rules only to people the management doesn't like? No.

(d) Who is "we"? I just saw you.

(e) You already have two sections for your "evidence", why must you try to drag this one down, too?

All you have done here was trolling. I'm sorry, I know I should avoid personal remarks and stuff, and I know you or TK will quickly whine to sysops about how nasty I am and how I (but not Rob!) violated a trillion rules, but your 30+ kb section above allows no other conclusion. You dragged several editors down a long road of random and unconnected accusations (while always claiming that your current accusation was what it's all about), grasping for straws as you dug random holes into history, looking for something that would stick. I'm sick and tired of this, and it needs to stop. You managed to cause another editor to put the neutrality of this entire article in dispute simply because one section echoes what a Reliable Source says. To make things worse, it's a RS Conservapedia praised at least twice on its main page! You are trying to include Original Research just because you're not happy that we're sticking to what the sources say in regards of Dr. Lipson. You accuse RationalWiki of controlling the content of this article, and yet you try to control it yourself, insisting that a section isn't neutral just because it doesn't say what you want!

Tell you what, Rob. You include that essay, and we include all CP essays. Open Season. I'll gladly pull an all-nighter to include all the stuff Andy said over the ages. Where should I start? Counterexamples to Relativity? Greatest Mysteries of World History? Critical Thinking in Math? Counterexamples to Evolution? Best of the Public? Come on, let's include Jesus disproving relativity! Let's mention how the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution! Let's discuss if there was humor before Christianity! Or how about Quantifying Openmindedness?

But if you go through the archives, you will notice something funny, Rob: RW regulars don't tend to go to great lengths to suggest such crap. We know in advance that no Reliable Source covers it, so we don't suggest it. And if some WP newbie does suggest it, RW regulars will be among the people who will reply "That's interesting and true, but it's not covered by a RS, so it can't go in.". Do you know what that means? It means that RW members, the evil vandals you are desperately trying to pin down, are better at working on an article about a site they oppose than you are right now.

You've been here long enough to understand the rules about Original Research and Reliable Sources, Rob. So I shouldn't have to say this, but I will do so anyway: If you want your claims to be included, show us a Reliable Source that says so. Until then, you're entitled to your opinion, but it won't go in. --Sid 3050 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) See Talk:Conservapedia/Archive_12#Needs_a_POV_check -- Nx / talk 21:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving back to content concerns

The situation between nobs (RobSmith on RW) and RationalWikians kept escalating, and it moved further and further away from discussing actual content.

Right after posting a lengthy (maybe too long, but things like "Wanna see your Username on the sockpoppet Noticeboard for the next several years" or "Your contribs at wp:CP hurt the WP project. I'll prove it to Arbcom, if necessary." bring out the worst in me) reply, I mentally slapped myself.

So I'm taking things back here to discuss content.

Nobs. What are your specific concerns? You brought up a lot of them, and they go from accusing RationalWiki of controlling the content of this article to including Dr. Lipson's political views. I think it's safe to say that people lost track of what you are trying to achieve.

So please, tell us which sections of the article you don't like, and what you would want to change to what. Let's start slowly so we're all on the same page. --Sid 3050 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

More than two days have passed, and Nobs has just insisted on overriding the COI Noticeboard he requested in the related RationalWiki article while at the same time threatening me with ArbCom and claiming that he was engaging in Dispute Resolution without actually discussing content. I'm done here. I spent almost a week on nothing but this on- and off-wiki.

Below is a post from my user talk page where I detailed to Nobs why I believe his repeatedly stated concerns about the LA Times accuracy are unfounded. The post is dated "01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)" and came in direct reply to Nobs (a.k.a. RobSmith on RW) threatening me with ArbCom unless I agree with him ("But working together begins with recognizing I have valid concerns. And those concerns basically are for the Wikipedia project. Your contribs at wp:CP hurt the WP project. I'll prove it to Arbcom, if necessary."). He never replied to it, instead keeping up the Dispute Resolution talk and ArbCom hints while claiming that I rejected to resolve the dispute.

[Copypaste start]

I recognize that the LA Times article could be worded better, and it's been shown that it's apparently possible to read it in a way that implies that PalMD founded RationalWiki - hence the Register article and the initial version of the restored RW article.

However, I reject that the LA Times article says PalMD is the founder of RationalWiki. It doesn't. It says (God, by now, I could recite this in my sleep):

"After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia."

"Several other editors" includes me. Does the LA Times article thus say that I'm the founder of RW? No, it doesn't. PalMD is just the only one of the initial group who is named in the article, but it doesn't say that he had a special role.

People can obviously jump to different conclusions after reading this article, and that's unfortunate. But that doesn't mean we should discard it. It means that we have to read it carefully and see if other sources contradict it.

• The Register merely paraphrases the LA Times. It likely didn't do its own direct research in the way Simon did (she interviewed at least two CP sysops and also communicated with one or more RationalWiki members, if I recall correctly). So where it goes beyond the claims of the original article and starts to paraphrase, I won't give it more weight than the LA Times article.
• PalMD himself states on his user page that the Register is wrong.
• Our own history page states that ColinR founded the original RW.
• I don't recall us denying that PalMD was among the first members. Considering that Simon knew of his medical qualifications and of his discussions with Andy about abortion/breastcancer, I would guess that he contacted when she appeared on CP to announce her article-writing intentions.

From my understanding, our statements thus don't contradict what the LA Times says: "Lipson and several other editors [...] started their own website". He was there in the beginning, and we were among the initial members to start it together.

At this moment, PalMD's statement, RationalWiki's history page, the LA Times and the Wikipedia CP article agree: "Several editors, including Lipson, started another website". There is no mention of a founder in the WP articles because the one source that mentions a founder at all is the Register, which drew its own conclusions from the LA Times article that go against what the person and the site in question claim.

Did this help in some way? Did I understand your concerns correctly? If you want to discuss this issue somewhere on Wikipedia, drop me a note and I'll copy this comment over. If your concerns are about something else, please tell me and I'll give you my thoughts as time permits.

[Copypaste end]

The time for wikilawyering games is over. Discuss content or stop pestering me. I'm sick and tired of this. --Sid 3050 (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article issues

Rob, please provide specific content issues you have with the article here. To avoid cluttering this up and preventing us from actually improving the article please avoid personal attacks against editors, or any other various threats that keep popping up. In order for anything to be done we need to see what it is you want to accomplish. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

COI again

Please excuse my insertion here, but I would consider this a point of order directed at B Fizz and and the Administrators of Wikipedia.

At the very least, there is a conflict of interest here in which Tmtoulouse - who has personally attacked Conservapedia Admins and Conservapedia in the most vulgar of terms - (and other Administrators of Rationalwiki as well) who demand to be part of the process of editing the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia. To my knowledge Wikipedia frowns on those directly involved, like a politician, editing his own article. That is the very reason I have not contributed to this article, to error on the side of impartiality, respecting the customs and procedures here. Nor did I attempt to edit the Rationalwiki article either. Yet here we have Wikipedia editors who are directly involved in trashing (on a daily basis) the very site and administrators they are writing about, and that strikes me as neither fair nor presenting the needed impartiality the public expects of Wikipedia. Would the public and Wikipedia find it acceptable for Karl Rove to edit the article on Rahm Emanuel? I suggest Wikipedia be done with this constant bickering, and turn the article over to known senior editors who have proven their ability to edit from a NPOV. I understand the results might very well not be to the liking of all parties directly involved, but in the end I think it will benefit Wikipedia and its users by excluding parties whose interests are necessarily conflicted. This has nothing to do with not assuming good faith, because one simply cannot (IMHO) run a wiki dedicated to criticizing, perhaps destroying, the very subject they are writing about and maintain the degree of confidence Wikipedia seeks from the public. This is just a matter of common sense, and shouldn't require endless filings and debates with various wiki-boards and commissions to resolve.

I hope my suggestion isn't out-of-order here, B Fizz. My apologies if it is. --TK-CP (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is a very specific term, and would only apply to me in regards to material on RationalWiki itself. Other than that, there is absolutely no requirement at all that an individual editor not have an opinion about a subject that he edits on. What matters is that the material they place on the article meets the standards of wikipedia (sourced, NPOV, etc.) If you can not demonstrate specifically where I have made edits to this article that violate these standards you are merely slinging personal attacks against me. So you need to tone your language down several orders of magnitude, learn a bit more about WP and then come back, or stay in your protected bubble on CP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you an Administrator here on Wikipedia Tmtoulouse, one that is allowed to dismiss sincere suggestions and tell others to go away? That is exactly why I have not wanted to get involved with this issue more deeply, the constant wiki-lawyering and squabbles that tie this place up in knots, when commonsense would otherwise make resolutions more easily arrived at. The fact that mean-spirited, rule-manipulating people are allowed to run rough-shod over others (by insisting they must have the same encyclopedic knowledge as they do of complicated wiki rules or shut up) for considering the best interests of Wikipedia and the public by making suggestions, without input or guidance from administrators here is lamentable. Of course this very issue is the subject of an on-going Foundation discussion, and rightly so. But that is another issue altogether. Your gratuitous dismissal is noted, and since no one can evidently engage the parties here without such dismissal and insults, I will take my leave of this conversation, and take my suggestions where they won't be dismissed out-of-hand by people of "good faith" like on this page. The public and impartiality, ultimately, is the loser here even more than Wikipedia. --TK-CP (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The COI Noticeboard has already determined that "Editors of a wiki are not conflicted with respect to that wiki," and that "COI is not a bludgeon to beat people over the head with until they submit. What do you propose, that we ban all CP and RW editors from editing articles related to either Wiki? I don't think that's going to happen."

CP sysops are not forbidden from editing this article. Neither are its critics. So "RW touched this!" is really not a strong argument here, at least not by itself. Which is why we (and this isn't limited to RW editors) repeatedly asked Nobs what part of the article(s) he opposes, why he opposes it, and how it should be fixed.

If there is an unsourced statement, just point it out (Nobs already did that when he pointed out that something about McCarthy wasn't sourced, and it was removed with no opposition or uproar). If a CP-related RS is not mentioned in the article, bring it up here. If something is worded unfairly, say so.

And yes, TK, we do expect you to know the rules if you want to make far-reaching suggestions about this article and accusations against us. --Sid 3050 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's the root of the issue, so far all TK and Rob have done is launch a personal attack against RW and editors of this page. There is one specific content dispute right now, and a solution is proposed in the section below. I will implement it sometime tomorrow if there is no real issues with it. After that, there are no content disputes that have been brought up. Give TK or Rob a day or two to come up with something, if not, remove the tag and be done with this charade. Tmtoulouse (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What I think is "tag-teaming" is ungentlemanly and degrades fair-minded discussion. Do you and Tmtoulouse answer for each other or represent some union of Rationalwiki administrators? If we are concerned with impartiality, perhaps some index should be devised with each discussion such as this to point others to the dozens of places the discussions you cite took place, along with an easy index of rules, along with their myriad interpretations. But to be so high-handed as to expect others to have the same wide-ranging Wikipedia rule knowledge as you evidently do, or shut up and go away until they do, is purely, simply, a stifling of free speech and the exchange of ideas. Can you say here you have a NPOV about Conservapedia? And what "charges" am I making against Rationalwiki, or you in particular, Sid? I find that a Red Herring, as I clearly said anyone conflicted, which would include Nobs and myself, as well as other CP administrators. IMO the goal should be about Wikipedia, and avoiding even the suggestion of conflict, rather than slavishly cling to the technical aspects of a rule. Personally I don't see suggesting removing the article from those associated with either wiki to be "far-reaching" at all. And what are my so-called attacks on you? Do you really consider my stating that Rationalwiki is dedicated to disputing Conservapedia an attack? Really?

Common sense and intellectual integrity, the world's sense of fair play, dictate that people with obvious conflicts not edit or involve themselves in the writing of articles for an encyclopedia, regardless of what some might interpret or represent the rules as being -- or letting them get away with. Especially when it becomes apparent the majority of those editing the article, (and reverting edits from anyone but associates), are members of a site dedicated to discrediting the subject. When that happens the public's confidence in the presented material is undermined, and ultimately it is Wikipedia's reputation that suffers. I thought my idea of turning the article over to known and trusted senior editors was one that everyone could agree on if they were truly interested in resolution and maintaining Wikipedia's impartiality. Obviously I was wrong. Shoot me. --TK-CP (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TK, Wikipedia values, above all, verifiability. If the article cites reliable sources for its facts, then the public should have confidence in the presented material. -- Nx / talk 11:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobs concerns

Prover you are not trolling Nobs. This section is for you. Start by giving just one specific content issue you have with this article. Please no one else fill this section with anything until Nobs decides to actually participate productively rather than attack his fellow editors. Here you Nobs, I am waiting. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please cease the personal attacks and agree to some form of Mediation. Thank you. nobs (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation can only address content disputes. Please layout what your content dispute is. If we can not resolve it then we can seek out mediation. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One last chance before I give up. One. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some form of mediation

Here I am, some random Wikipedian ready to help mediate your issues. Nobs, please indicate all of your specific concerns, whether they be related to content, civility, privacy, or otherwise. All of you, please avoid incivilities, regardless of past behavior. All editors are welcome to raise issues and comment thereupon. Disruptive behavior in this discussion will be reported to appropriate noticeboards and administrative action will be requested as necessary. Participating in this discussion is an implicit agreement to this informal mediation. If the situation gets sticky, we can look into a more formal mediation process. Finally, kindly keep your comments short and sweet. Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I pledge to discuss civilly, and failure on my to rebut incivility in no way should be assumed to imply a passive assent to it.

There are privacy concerns here, namely that an active WP editor, also a founding RationalWiki editor and possibly the "owner" of the site, has been actively involved in shaping content of this entry and other Conservapedia related articles for several years. This editor once refered to Conservapedia on an archived Talk page here as "a racist propaganda sewer." This same editor hung a selfmade template tag on an archived Talk page "to direct complaints" to conservapedia.com. Contemporaneously, RationalWiki editors were both involved in discussions on an archived Talk page here about anti-semitic content in conservapedia. I am a Checkuser in Conservapedia and personally reverted much of that content, which was placed by several of the founding editors of RationalWiki.

Several founding RationalWiki editors admitted to a WP:RS they engaged in cyber-vandalism. I am hesitant at this point to discuss more because the active user here apparantly edits under his own name. Can we be advised how to proceed. Thank you. nobs (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem right here, this kind of stuff is full of poorly veiled accusations and personal attacks, and when you get down to it, has absolutely nothing to do with wikipedia, or the conservapedia article on wikipedia. The accusations are ludicrous and the events he is describing occurred over three years ago. Unless Rob address content issues then this can only be seen as a personal vendetta against editors. Mediation is not an appropriate way to deal with that, and I would be inclined to move toward an RFC about user conduct rather than bash my head against informal mediation. If Rob does manage to actually bring up some content issues then there might be something to discuss. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Hit List" of U.S. Senators marked for assasination, and resulting criticism of RationalWiki's owners [15] was not over three years ago. nobs (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"There are privacy concerns..." - Nobs, Tmtoulouse has identified you by a particular name, is this an example of the privacy concerns that you are talking about? If so, then post to WP:ANI or another admin noticeboard and request 1) oversight to remove mentions of your personal information and 2) administrative action against any editors who have posted this information.

"[Tmtoulouse]...a founding RationalWiki editor...has been actively involved in shaping content of this entry and other Conservapedia related articles" - I assume you've brought this up at WP:COI before? If you feel it a serious unresolved issue, then I would say post again. However, remember that everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. One editor's work is checked by several other editors. If its correct, sourced content, we keep it.

As for the rest of your concerns, Nobs, they seem to be in the past. If there are standing civility issues that you feel are unresolved, then feel free to bring them up at WP:WQA. If there is any standing content that is in the gray area of WP:NPOV, then feel free to indicate specific examples here and we'll discuss them. You mention a discussion "about anti-semetic content in conservapedia". Is there a section on the WP article that you feel is non-neutral regarding this issue? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TY. I have no problem with transparency of my real life identity (User:RobSmith in both Conservapedia & RationalWiki).

I would like to place {POV} tags in both the ==RationalWiki== and ==Lenski== subheads and proceed to discussion on RationalWiki vandalism of Conservapedia as it relates to both.

There is a problem with the citation to the Stephanie Simon LA Times article as extensively debated on this page. The most recent is an above Admin has threatened administrative action against anyone who tries to reinsert the language of a previous version. Trouble is, me, several RationalWiki editors, and some neutral editors have been are near a consensus on that matter -- although I personally would like to see more context given to that article. If the Admin in question can be advised that we are attempting to mediate language, it would be helpful. These are all positive steps. TY. nobs (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You must spell out specifically what POV problems you think exist, you can't just hang a tag and refuse to tell us the content issues. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

BFizz, can you hang the tag, please? nobs (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of the pov tag, I've placed the {{toofewopinions}} tag, which appropriately states "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints". After the community discusses and reaches consensus on the LA Times quote removal, and any other potentially-unaddressed viewpoints, we can safely remove it. My placing the tag is not necessarily agreeing with Nobs, but rather admitting the possibility of validity to the concern. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If Rob continues to refuse to offer specific content issues I will remove the tag in a couple days. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We do not place content tags on article because someone is angry about something. If you actually think an opinion is missing, please state what opinion that is, and it can be added. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal + Threat

First of all don't threaten blocks with content disputes its bad form across the board. Second, its in the damn article read it. I don't really care, since it is actually beneficial to me to have it removed since it is a mischaracterization of the situation. But I have always been one to "do in Rome" on WP. Your policy is pretty clear that if a reliable source (I.E. the LA Times) says that someone said something, than they probably said it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tangential, barely related material

Once again tmt, I propose private mediation. I can not discuss content issues here (or on talk/RationalWiki, or at RationalWiki.com) without interference and personal attacks from other editors. You can email me privately. nobs (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. You have your assignment, read the section above. Until then, I am not really interested in what you have to say. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I made exactly one edit to this entry's mainspace -- hang a {POV} tag to subsection entitled ==Peter Lipson==. It was reverted by a RationalWiki editor and this disputed subject spilled over to two more pages. Net result: Peter Lipson replaced with RatioalWiki and both Lipson & RationalWiki deemed non-notable critics. So why then, does RationalWiki have its own subhead?

RationalWiki's only claim to notability is cyber-vandalism, per the LA Times -- something tmt and I both agree on. Seems we have a basis to start a discussion on the problems of this entry, if tmt who wrote most of it would be willing. nobs (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again you make the same recommendation with out doing the steps needed to lay the ground work. My wikiknowledge is a little weak, but does anyone else think that this threat should be reported as an abuse of admin powers? It seems like an Admin should know better. --EmersonWhite (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

EmersonWhite, please make clear whom you are speaking to. nobs is not an Admin with powers to block, and tmt was refering to a WP Admin. nobs (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. There are two issues I attempted to address. Issue number A) Nobs recommending mediation with out actually laying the groundwork to make it work or show it to be worthwhile (in effect using the process in a manner akin to a punishment). Issue number B) User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise Using threats to back up his reversions and never bothering to use the talk page. --EmersonWhite (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye the threat was from another Admin that hasn't really been too involved that I see. It is not a big deal, just one of my pet peeves is a wiki admin who is clearly involved in a content dispute starts making threats. But that is neither here nor there as per Rob. Rob I will repeat again, you can not merely hang a tag on an article, you have to give specifics. You keep talking like there is some dispute but refuse to tell us what that dispute is.

There are clear a few basic steps that must be met in dispute resolution. The most basic is a clear description of what changes you want to be made. I can not even "dispute" with you because you refuse to tell me what changes you want to see. If you tell me what changes you would like to see, we can see if we can compromise. If not, we can look towards formal mediation. If formal mediation fails, then we can start talking about arb com or other escalation.

Private mediation of disputes, while certainly not against WP policy, is not a formal part of it either. And I would like our discussion to be open. I am not required to do this in private, and a request that you lay out what changes you want to see for everyone is a reasonable request. I see based on a talk page edit at RW you are drafting an Arb Com case. I am almost certain it will be refused to be heard on the grounds that it is a content dispute, and that you have made no strides towards standard dispute resolution.

My "assume good faith" is starting to drift Rob, starting to feel as if I am being trolled. Others have said the same thing. You need to come to this talk page with specifics. You mentioned you want to review all 88 references in the article, go for it, come back with your specific issues. But trying to strong arm me into some sort of private mediation, or threaten arb com cases just isn't going to fly.

However, I will reward you for offering the glimmer of a specific issue in your reply, which is a question of RW notability in the CP article. The RationalWiki article passed a RFD with a decision to "keep." The consensus of the active editors on the page was to merge the material into this article and redirect. Notability has been established by community consensus, based on reliable sources. If you feel the decision to merge the RW material to this article was not appropriate please explain. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tmt's had control of this article for three years; nobs hung a dispute tag a week ago over whether or not Peter Lipson was notable enough to warrant his own subhead. The dispute spilled over to three pages, nobs was shouted down by RationalWiki editors and impugned with all sorts of trash, the tag was immediately reverted. And in the end a community consensus deemed nobs question was correct -- Peter Lipson was not notable enough to warrant his own subhead.

This sort of intimidation of an editor who cannot edit mainspace, nor openly discuss problems with the article without being vicuiously attacked doesn't spell good for public discussion.

You yourself said on a subpage about Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia, "There are things to say about this man that are not the most flattering. But there are no sources for it." [16] Yet you've had an immense influence on shaping both the articles. Can all this be discussed here? nobs (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there is no requirement that an individual editor have a neutral point of view on an article that they work on. Only that what is written meets NPOV and RS standards. All of my edits to articles on WP have been on material that I have a strong view point on. If editors with strong feelings about a topic were band from editing on those topics no one would write anything. I know nothing about fly fishing in southern Ireland so could probably be pretty neutral, but I am not going to spend my time writing articles about it.

What you would have to show is that my edits to the article violated NPOV or RS standards. In order to do that you would have to bring up specific examples of material in the article that you think violate those standards. Others can then review your specific claims and see if they have merit, and if so make changes. So far you have said you brought up an issue, that issue was resolved in a way that you feel was supportive of your original assertion. Well then great, progress was made. Now whats your next assertion? Do you see the pattern here? Do you see what I keep asking for, over, and over, and over, and what you fail to provide? Specific issues with article content. I can't believe I got suckered back into this with you. This whole discussion is massively diluting an otherwise legitimate and specific content dispute. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

" And in the end a community consensus deemed nobs question was correct -- Peter Lipson was not notable enough to warrant his own subhead." Wrong, there was no such decision. RationalWiki was deemed not notable enough to have a separate article, but the notability criteria for articles is not the same as the notability criteria for article content. -- Nx / talk 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

tmt, you hung a homemade template on this article which read, "to address complaints about Conservapedia, please visit Conservapedia.com" with a link to the external site. You edit warred to keep that template in this article. As one of several founding editors of RationalWiki, who per the L.A. Times, "by thier own admission engage in cyber-vandalism," can you cite a WP policy to support encouraging readers who share your lack of NPOV to vandalize an off-wiki website? nobs (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Next time, please provide a diff with your accusations instead of forcing other editors to search through the history.

The template was put on the talk page, not the article, here it is: [17]. It was later replaced with a standard template that says essentially the same thing [18], not removed because it is inappropriate.

Also, "complaints and questions" are not vandalism. -- Nx / talk 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not. The selfmade template has a direct link to Conservapedia "to address complaints," and was placed on this talk page. This was at the sametime RationalWiki editors were inserting anti-Semitic vandalism and parodic content into Conservapedia -- and that subject was being discussed on this talk page by several editors -- including RationalWiki parodists. [19] nobs (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You know what Rob, do it, there comes a time and a place where you gotta "put up" or stop talking about it. Your refusal to address content issues, and continued insistence that this needs to turn into a personal condemnation about individual users means that you don't really want to get any thing improved on this page, but rather malign editors. Start your Arb Com case, or go away. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nx, this is a little like trying to figure exchange rates in your head or translate a language you don't know so well, so I forgive you for getting it wrong (you know better!). "Complaints and criticism" seem like normal activities to most of us, but going to Conservapedia to raise "complaints and questions" is at the very heart of what the other sysops there consider "vandalism." That's what Nobs is saying, and I believe he's absolutely correct to point this out. One should not go to Conservapedia to address content concerns on that website. It's just not done. Nuttish (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That Conservapedia considers uncomfortable questions and truths vandalism is irrelevant when it comes to judging the actions of an editor at WP. -- Nx / talk 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was only trying to give color to Nobs' statement "can you cite a WP policy to support encouraging readers who share your lack of NPOV to vandalize an off-wiki website?" Nuttish (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

This is a BLP issue. A statement that somebody "admitted" to cybervandalism needs very good sources. A third-party report, even from an otherwise decent source such as the LA Times, which just makes such a claim in passing, without specifying exactly who, where, when and how made that "admission", doesn't qualify. If they made such an admission, it should be easy enough to find out where it was done, and provide a reference to it directly. Absent this clarification, the claim goes out.

I am enforcing this under WP:BLP, which means I am not bound by 3RR in removing this material, and will feel entitled to use the block or protection buttons if the need arises. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "If they made such an admission, it should be easy enough to find out where it was done, and provide a reference to it directly", you seem to be advocating OR, & suggesting that a reference to a secondary source is replaced with a primary one. If such an admission were made, it is probably at RationalWiki, which is not a RS to cite. The LA Times is. ωεαşεζǫįδ 11:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the admission was made to the LA Times - was Lipson interviewed for that article when he said that? -- Nx / talk 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In the passage in question, the LA Times article shifts from talking about Lipson specifically to talking about RW editors generally, so I don't think it's necessarily saying that Lipson was among those committing acts of cyber-vandalism or admitting to them, though admittedly the wording is ambiguous. The way it was quoted in this article explicitly suggested that Lipson was among the perpetrators, so that should probably be reworded slightly, but I see no grounds for altogether removing this aspect of what the journalist reported. ωεαşεζǫįδ 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Lipson was interviewed for the LA Times article and said that they commit vandalism - although the wording is indeed unclear, and I doubt we're going to find another source for that statement. -- Nx / talk 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"And -- by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." Be careful, Nx. What conduct was Simon referring to as "cyber-vandalism"? I agree with Future Perfect, but would go one further. Certain Conservapedia admin enjoy referring to RationalWiki as the "vandal site" to this day for their own transparently self-serving ideological purposes. But what is "cyber-vandalism"? The term has a huge range of possible meanings, one of which is unlawfully defamatory if not true, the other of which is laughably trivial. On the one hand, no RS states that Lipson and the unnamed editors referenced in the article were involved in anything unlawful, which goes to the legal meaning of "vandalism." On the other hand, anything that embarrasses Conservapedia, its admin, or casts any favored "conservative" (George Orwell is now a closet Conservative according to Andrew Schlafly) in a bad light is removed as vandalism and the editor is blocked for years or more so Conservapedia admins can continue bumping around in a dark echo chamber. I imagine a colloquial definition of "cyber-vandalism" would reflect that whatever activity is being referred to is far less serious than unlawful vandalism in the strict legal sense. I sure wish we knew what Simon was talking about, but since "cyber-vandalism" are Simon's words, not Lipson's, and we don't know what specific conduct she was referring to, the quote requires an explanation in order to be intelligible. If "cyber-vandalism" goes back into the Lipson section, the article needs to make clear that "cyber-vandalism" has multiple meanings, what those meanings are, that no RS specifically identifies the nature of any "cyber-vandalism" engaged in by Lipson and the unidentified others, and that it's unclear what Lipson and the unidentified editors were "admitting" to in the Simon article. Nuttish (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not hard to figure out what Simon was talking about if you read the paragraph that follows the "cyber-vandalism" comment. ωεαşεζǫįδ 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It has a solid RS, any worry beyond that can be fixed with a little original research, any in fact. Cyber vandalism is a bit of a broad term so that's not good, but really that should be in there, it meets BLP and if anything my COI leads me to want to take it out. --EmersonWhite (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a wiki, so what do you think the term "vandalism" means in light of that? (Rhetorical question.) Seregain (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the RS crowd, though I can easily see Future Perfect's point in that this is a pretty strong statement about RationalWiki editors in general, especially since the active member list since 2007 has changed considerably. It's true that there are RW editors who have admitted to having "vandalized" CP as per the definition given by the LA Times, but this is not a RationalWiki goal or endorsed by the site's principles. In fact, such admissions are generally frowned upon, and general consensus is that it's much funnier to watch Schlafly's "insights" without vandal distractions.

Further, only RationalWiki is/was cited as having committed "vandalism", which (in my humble opinion) puts unfair weight (is that the proper term in this situation?) on the site. Especially when sourced incidents like Colbert openly calling for his viewers to insert him into the Conservative Bible Project is described without calling it vandalism. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not endorsed? Please explain points 8 and 9 here. While they fall just short of a blatant "Go vandalize Conservapedia" endorsement, it's patently obvious that "such admissions are generally frowned upon" because they don't want vandalism quickly found and reverted. Seregain (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seregain, please don't tear my posts apart. Also, please explain how those points endorse vandalism. This is bordering on you just making stuff up. It's true that we don't endorse pointing out every bit of vandalism or parody on CP. We were all BANNED there (often enough just for being a member of RW). We are NOT members of CP anymore. It's not our JOB to do so anymore. Conservapedia painted itself into a corner by banning truckloads of editors (often along with /16 IP ranges) just for not fully agreeing with whatever Andy postulates as truth. We watch and laugh at Conservapedia, and sometimes we point out silly errors, but considering that the very word "RationalWiki" is forbidden on CP, we don't see it as our duty to help them out much more than we do already. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you wish to know my reasons for saying something, you could just ask. Blindly guessing and then claiming that it's "patently obvious" is bordering on bad faith. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about moving my post and breaking up your's. For some reason, I had it in my mind that it was two paragraphs from two different users.

Now, I don't see how you can differentiate between a blatant endorsement of vandalism and statements that amount to "Don't point it out because we think it's funny and don't want it found." It's indirect endorsement and you know it. If Conservapedia were saying such things about people making conservatively-biased edits on Wikipedia, you'd agree that they were endorsing such edits.

As to Rationalwiki editors being allegedly banned from Conservapedia, I can only mention one word: Tor. Indeed, pages on Rationalwiki such as this, this and this are not ringing endorsements of the idea that Rationalwiki does not endorse vandalism. Seregain (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Check out the namespaces those articles are from, there is a reason they are in Fun or Essay. RW actually doesn't support "vandalism" in anyway, at best you could make a case that we passively encourage, or reward parody and that's a different animal than vandalism. I am not going to get into the history of those articles, where they came from, and why they are still up. A lot of that information is on talk pages, and the reason most of that stuff is still at RW is for historical purposes. Anything in the "fun" namespace is joke article anyway, and "essay" is clearly not endorsed by RW. We have several essays hosted on the site that are the source of large amounts of debate from every single RW member except the author of the essay. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't support it, but you do. Add "parody" to Wikipedia and it would be rightfully and correctly called vandalism. Pig in a dress. To anyone with a brain, all the "fun," "essay" and "disclaimer" stuff is clearly "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" base-covering. Vandalism is clearly supported -- "passive" support is still support -- in the "WIGO" instructions I linked to above. Seregain (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, you have clearly made up your mind, and I don't really care. Whats your point though? Your fervent cries of our vandal nature matter as much as my attempts to explain context and history, which is to say nothing as far as the article content goes. My perspective as a founder is not a RS, your talk page rants are not a RS. And a blocked crazed admin has clearly stated that the LA Times is not a RS for the vandalism claim. Therefore, we are left with no sources, and no way to get information into the article. Further discussion would be offtopic on this page by several orders of magnitude. 19:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmtoulouse (talk • contribs)

Wow. That was... completely unhelpful. Admins, crazed or not, can be wrong. The LA Times citation was clearly reliable by several orders of magnitude. If it's not reliable, then there's a whole crapload of other material on Wikipedia that needs to be removed immediately for relying on the same or similar sources. Seregain (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Helpful about what? All you have done is open up an off topic discussion about RationalWiki. What I said is true, your opinion and my opinion don't matter. All that matters is what a RS says. There is an RS for mentioning the vandalism issue, but an admin is reverting every user in sight and threatening to block them. Go ahead and revert them, 3 other editors have. I don't care enough to engage an admin in a content dispute whose threatening to use (misuse in my opinion) their admin tools to resolve the dispute. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is worth setting the context a bit, and what was actually done. Just to provide some level of understanding as editors work this out. Around June 12th, 2007 Stephanie Simon made a post on Schlafly's talk page at CP with contact information. Various editors at RW wrote her e-mails. She talked to a few of them, including Lipson. I do not believe that it was Lipson who actually "admitted to cyber-vandalism" but rather another RW user who had e-mailed Simon. It has to be understood in context as well. CP had come to term any editing of the site that was not in line with their POV as vandalism. For example, adding science into article about evolution or intelligent design could easily get you blocked for vandalism. RW users joked a lot at the time, and still do, about how we were a scourge of cyber-vandals adding facts to article at CP.

None of the major founders of RW, or the major active users of RW at the time that Simon's piece was written were actively vandalizing the site. The closest thing we had was a young man with the internet moniker "Icewedge" who started out as a typical vandal on CP but eventually became a constructive member, and administrator of our site, even speaking out against CP vandalism. However, certain kinds of actions that CP views as vandalism were encouraged at RW. Such as arguing valid points on talk pages, attempting to create new factual articles from a main stream science perspective, to try and get the horridly written tome of evolution unprotected, etc.

Do some RW editors vandalize CP? Sure, so do some WP editors. Did someone from RW tell Simon that they engage in "cyber vandalism"? Certainly, I am pretty sure I know who and why it was said. But the term vandalism as used and bandied about between RW and CP isn't necessarily the same as it would be on WP. This of course is one of the problems with WP, that the "truth" of a situation can not be reported unless it is in a RS.

Summarize: It is an inaccurate description, and I am happy to see it removed, but it is in the LA Time piece. However, if it does stay it needs to clearly disassociate whether Lipson said it or not. He didn't, that was another RW user. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Simon uses the word, they, preumably all RW editors she interviewed for the her article. They also is plural. And yes, it is helpful in setting the context a bit. Some of the cybervandalism Simon wrote of occurred here, in Wikipedia, on this talk page. Between March 21 and April 29, 2007, a discussion subheaded ==Anti-Semitism== occurred on this talk page. [20] User:Tmtlouslouse placed a selfmade template [21] stating "For complaints or questions about Conservapedia, please go Conservapedia's external website: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page. " by June 12, 2007, the level of cyber-vandalism attracted by this misuse of a Wikipedia project page attracted a mainstream journalist's attention.

Much of anti-Semitic cybervandalism inserted by the founders of RationalWiki was reverted by me. [22] RationalWiki's own timeline of Conservapedia's history corrobarates when Conservapedia began the checkuser function. nobs (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

From the Archived link, user:GeoPlourde, a WP editor & CP sysop responds twice,

• Conservapedia does not have a anti-semitic bias. You are probably seeing vandalism. Geo. Talk to me 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• We have been having a rash of anti-semitic vandalism on Conservapedia. This looks like something we did not get to. Geo. Talk to me 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"anti-semitic vandalism," several weeks before the Simon article appeared, and RationalWiki founders admitted in a WP:RS to engaging in cyber-vandalism to discredit Conservapedia. nobs (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to ask you Rob, to please stop with unfounded accusations and personal attacks against me, and other RW editors. This page is to discuss the content of the article about conservapedia. If you do not have anything to say about that you need to move on. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I, as you are, am speaking from personal knowledge of the background on the Stephanie Simon LA Times article. You may not even know that Ms. Simon asked Andrew Schlafly and the Conservapedia sysops she interviewed for their assent to selecting an equal number of RationalWiki editors to interview. We could have nixed that idea and she would have gone ahead with the article about Conservapedia only. But we felt some sunlight shed on RationalWiki and it's activities would only be beneficial. And Simon's article on balance is extraordinarily fair. nobs (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything that should be on a talk page about a wikipedia article on Conservapedia? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What is a comment like this [23] doing on the talk/Conservapedia page? particularly when there's ample evidence RationalWiki editors inserted exactly that sort of material? [24] nobs (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nobs, this is a Talk page for the article Conservapedia on the website Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a site dedicated to creating a free, bottom up, encyclopedia. The talk pages on this website are designed to help build this encyclopedia. This particular talk page should be used to discuss the article on conservapedia. If you have questions or issues with the content on the article page this is place to bring it up. Otherwise, there are better websites to bring up other issues. Below is a section created just for you to give you a chance to explain what your content issues might be. I would like to encourage you to use it. Have a nice day. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some form of mediation (cont.)

Stephanie Simon LA Times article

Excerpted,

• After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia.

And -- by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism. [25]

Lipson

• 28 March 2007, Lipson makes two postings in RationalWiki 1.0.
• 10-11 April 2007, Lipson edits [Breast cancer] entry. [26]
• 21 April 2007, Lipson recieves infinte block. [27]

Conclusion: Peter Lipson misrepresented to Stephanie Simon the circumstances under which he became involved in the RationalWiki project. nobs (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that when you linked us to the block log you showed us all the blocks, starting nearly a month earlier. Also you realize that if other editors were blocked before that and started RW, and then Lispon joined merely hours before he was blocked that a reasonable journalist would feel justified in simplifying the story rather than diagramming it all out FAOI style. Their is not used to mean every single member of RW 1.0 but rather to convey the message that that was the general trend. Is the article perfectly written? No, is your OR any thing but OR? no. --EmersonWhite (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the article or the content of the article, it is also the kind of stuff that seems like nothing but an attack on an individual. If you are not making a specific suggestion for a content change to the conservapedia article on wikipedia it is probably best just not to bring this kind of stuff up. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Emerson and Tmt (It's OR, you're just attacking Dr. Lipson with your misrepresentation claim, and you failed to suggest a fix), and I'd like to add that the key piece of your evidence chain (Dr. Lipson's alleged posts from March 28) is a broken link. --Sid 3050 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They're right, Nobs. Your conclusion does not specify any need to change content on this page. Why did you bring it up? Is there an associated content change that you are proposing? ...comments? ~BFizz 23:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability of RationalWiki

So the consensus view of RationalWiki as a non-notable source revailed at the RfD. The question now is, why is it mentioned at all this article? nobs (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some misunderstanding here. The AfD was closed as keep, or no consensus. It was left up to the editors to opt for a redirect. The general opinion is that, according to WP:RS, the reference used in this article is more than adequate. As such, it is perfectly acceptable to mention RationalWiki here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, so a factual inaccurate WP:RS is citing a non-notable source. Ok. nobs (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly made the accusation that the LA times article is inaccurate but you have not made any attempt to provide evidence of that conclusion. --EmersonWhite (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The wording here is also mildly confusing. Article topics are subject to the notability criteria, not their sources per se, although that might just be semantics. Nevertheless, how anybody can say the LA Times does not meet WP:RS is beyond me. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he's saying that the LA Times article is inaccurate and that RationalWiki is non-notable. Which (1) kinda ignores WP:NNC, (2) kinda ignores the outcome of the RW AfD, (3) completely ignores discussion attempts regarding the factual accuracy of the LA Times (on RW and in my "Moving back to content concerns" section above).

Briefly summing up my longer argument from above: The LA Times article says "Lipson and several other editors [...] started their own website". Lipson and RW's History page say that he is not the founder. From what I see, the claim of inaccuracy rests solely on Nobs' insistence that the LA Times line says that Lipson was the founder of RW. Which... it doesn't. It's possible to jump to such a conclusion (see the Register article that made the Lipson-as-founder claim while paraphrasing the LA Times article) because Lipson is the only named early-generation member, but that's not what the article actually says. The LA Times could be phrased better, but it boils down to "Lipson was one of the first members", which isn't contradicted by Lipson or RW History. Heck, I'm one of the first members, too, but nobody is claiming that I'm the founder of RW. The Wikipedia article right now reads "Several editors, including Lipson, started another website", which is accurate and sourced in my eyes. I don't see the problem. --Sid 3050 (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Sid. Would it be safe to say Lipson was a co-founder, or among the founding members?

Let's reiterate what the LA Times says, Lipson and others founded RationalWiki and by thier own admission engage in cybervandalism. Is this not what Stephanie Simon reported?  !nobs (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we avoid the foreplay and you just say what exactly you want changed in the article, and how? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki appears to have piggybacked on this Conservapedia entry to promote itself, particularly since RationalWiki editors have included it. The L.A. Times article points out RationalWiki founders have admitted to engaging in cybervandalism. This Wikipedia article has been controlled by the RationalWiki founders. nobs (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how I can be any clearer, what we need from you is a specific statement about what you want changed in the article. Ideally put it in quotes, or hell make the change you want and we can do a edit/revert/discuss cycle. Just tell us, in some way, what it is you want done to the article. You keep saying "things" and spinning conspiracy theories without actually telling us what it is you want done to the article. Continued refusal to engage in a constructive discussion about article content will be met (at least by me, and I hope others) with simply ignoring you. For you edification. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hang a {POV} tag without it being reverted (my only contribution to mainspace to date) by a RationalWiki founder [28] and discussion spilling over to three pages including a week long RfD on RationalWiki which ends up with a reversion to the status quo. This should be unproblematic [29] for an organization under attack. [30] nobs (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way, you don't get to hang a tag on an article without stating specifically what changes you think need to be made. You cant just perma-flag an article. Again, what we are lacking here is specifically what it is you want to see changed, how you want to see it changed, and even a "why" would be nice. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

tmt, this is constructive. Let me hang {article issues} tag. Let's keep this on the sober & civil plane of discussion you and I have always had in the past. Many CP editors, who are also WP editors, consider this a hit piece written by RW editors. I will not edit war in mainspace, nor do I care go review editors past actions or get into inextensive interpretation of policy discussion. Both of us have time restrictions, but I think we can work together constructively to improve this article and facilitiate a pleasant editing environment.

Bottomline, a dispute exists. I am a minority of one, it's easy to muster a mobocracy to shout me down. Let's set an example as to how a longrunning dispute between wiki editors can be used to improve the Wikipedia project and promote respect and civility among editors. Thank you my friend. nobs (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Until you can state exactly what the dispute is, no dispute exists. What do you want to see changed (other than adding half a dozen tags tp the article)? So you think this is a hit piece? How? I'll tell you what, do a google search for Conservapedia, and if you can find one site in the first 50 results covering CP more fairly than this one I'd be very surprised. Now state some proposed changes or quit trolling. -R. fiend (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last post to you Rob until I see you provide specific changes. Good luck. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok tmt. This article has 88 refs; each one will be reviewed. I picked the most obvious POV distortion and misrepresentation of underlying sources here Talk:Conservapedia/Archive_15#Factual_inaccuracies, cited to two sources. May as well catalogue who inserted POV distortions as such and we will proceed from there. nobs (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

hidden by mediating admin: Speculation about intentions of other editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nobs seems to harbor some delusion that if something is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it isn't notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia at all. So basically, every proper noun should be linked, and if the link is red, the item should be removed. This is, of course, ridiculous, and deserves no further consideration. -R. fiend (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I suggest, per nobs's argument, that we remove all mention of Andrew Schlafly from this article, as he has no article of his own - merely a redirect. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly seems like what we have now is fair and accurate, and meets requirements of general WP policy as well as general consensus of active editors. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin stupidly weighs in...

Hello, I have been watching this sorry mess for a while and thought I'd try to help. Basically, the personal opinions and off-wiki activities of editors are completely irrelevant unless they are creating article content which does not agree with reliable sources. Also, cleanup tags are only to be used when a specific issue exists with the article content itself, and you cannot fix it yourself.

My actions as admin will be as follows:

1. Archive posts on this talk page which do not mention specific issues with the article content
2. Remove without archival any comments which make personal attacks against another editor
3. Encourage user:TK-CP and user:Nobs01 to directly edit the article, to fix any inaccuracies they can find, to reword sections in as neutral a way as possible, to add any missing information and so on
   • If other editors object to any of these changes, I will help mediate the discussion
4. Remove cleanup templates unless an attempt has previously been made to "fix" the article directly

To summarise, no one will be banned from editing the article unless they are introducing false or misleading content and you should attempt to fix an article rather than tagging it. Papa November (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you EmersonWhite (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, good intervention. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I placed the tag was for the specific issue of the LA Times quote, and the "fix" (determining whether or not the quote merits inclusion) was being actively discussed. Apparently that has been resolved. Thanks for cleaning up here. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)