User talk:Sid 3050/Archive 2

Which project?

Hey, are we discussing Wikipedia or some other project here?

Anyway, I was interested in your thoughts about Drug facilitated sexual assault from the standpoint of Forensic science. Perhaps we can find a legal and/or scientific definition for the practice. If so, we would have two points of view to describe: One that says there is no accepted legal or scientific definition, and another which provides the thing the first POV says does not exist. What a delicious combination! --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I have a lot to say about CP (I sometimes want to do a full write-up about where CP went wrong after a potentially promising start, but it would take FAR more time than I feel would be worth spending on this. Also, I'm kinda lazy. :P), I try to keep it out of WP matters except where it's relevant. In your case, it often is since you are one of the few people who do an interesting sort of parallel editing, so it sometimes helps to check both sides/sites to get the full narrative. (A good case in point would be your recent templates.) Which also explains how I ended up in your contribs history today.

And today was indeed a slow news day thanks to various factors. One was me (finally) recovering from a few lousy weeks, but being too lazy to dive head-first into my pile of work again. And I've once again reached a point where I'm extremely tired of the antics on CP. I need more Andy Insights like Jesus disproving relativity to keep me interested. Other than that, CP is just a boring anti-liberal echo chamber in which some of the core sysops (and their clones, the painfully obvious parodists) merrily pile on whoever was dumb enough to sign up to argue against The Truth According To CP. Oh, plus a few people who push their agendas (Hi, Ken!) and use CP's quasi-notable status as some sort of validation that they're right and/or popular (Hi, Ken!).

But you know me - I try to be fair and apply enough Good Faith to not oppose whatever you do on general principle. ;)

As an aside: Avatar is the highest-grossing film of all time in North America, don't you think it deserves more than just a single line in a pseudo-disambig page? (And maybe close the ref tag in that edit? Right now it prevents the References section from showing up...) Though at least that one line is better than the NOTHING that had been there before...

More on-topic: I'm not well-versed in sciency or legalese definitions and haven't really looked into the subject so far before today. From what I understand, the problem isn't really defining date rape (since it's just a subset of regular sex without consent), but rather date rape drugs (the enabler). Since alcohol already made the list, any definition would either be extremely broad or extremely subjective. I'd guess that for sufficiently large quantities, quiiiite a few things might qualify as date rape drugs. And it also of course depends on the victim: I'm sure that I would be out cold after far fewer drinks than most people my age. And where's the border where someone counts as drugged? And, and, and...

Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't care about my definition handwaving at freaking 3am (The day I become a Reliable Source will be a fun one... for me). It just cares about what More Awesome People say. And we can find that out. Personally, I think it will be a futile search because of the complications outlined above. But we can still look.

I'll give input and reply to your posts on the Date Rape Drug talkpage tomorrow or so. I'm already half asleep (and it likely shows), so I'll just keep my rambling to my own talkpage. ;) --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it might be easier to find a Reliable Source for the statement that there is no legal/scientific definition. We'll see. --Sid 3050 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lipson

Is there some unsaid significance to him being in the Conservapedia article? I can't see why anyone cares that much. Pirate^Argh!!1! 13:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's mentioned in the RS more than others, his debate with Andy was one of the more prominent ones at the time (especially since we had a doctor and a lawyer debating medicine - with the lawyer eventually deciding what the truth is) and he provides the lead-in for RW both in our and the LA Times article. *shrug* I don't recall who added him or why. I was mostly inactive back then, except for a few talk posts to ask for better phrasing of attributing every kind of vandalism to CP. (See my June 2007 contribs)

If you're asking why he came up so often during the last three weeks, that's easy: It's not directly about Lipson, but rather about dismantling or (better yet) completely removing the RationalWiki section. CP's (mostly) unwritten rule is that RW doesn't exist and should never be mentioned. See for example how this removed section led to this discussion about "rats": "Unspoken rule, no rats ever, no mentioning rats, no rat pages allowed." (this was verified and justified by admin TK in the same section with the simple "Do what we say" super-rule).

Nobs' proposals pretty much fall in line with this thinking, and the entire mess makes a whole lot more sense when you keep it in mind. He also openly admitted on RW that this is simply about damage control: "As Director of Internal Counterintelligence, I felt deeply remorseful what transpired in my absence. Namely the Hit List, Lenski affairs, and infiltration into the Zuegledon group. These Ne-ev-er would have happened had I been around. Ne-eev-er. So I've had time to conduct an internal review, and now must mitigate the damage." (statement made roughly two days after he started things off here, replying to open questions what Rob was trying to achieve).

That's why Lipson comes up so often these days, that's why Nobs here, that's why he's preparing an ArbCom case, that's why he won't stop trying. --Sid 3050 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes more sense now. I'm not usually involved in anything contentious, but my guess is that this is going to be forum shopped until an ANI case and then some people will be topic banned. Some people will lose their cool and say some nasty stuff and they will be reprimanded. Of course, this will play out over a year or two with countless hours wasted. Pirate^Argh!!1! 00:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances....

Please do not protect fellow editors of the RW website and/or remove edits from my talk page. Although I choose to believe your intentions were honorable in this particular instance and you do not know who user: Freps is, others might misconstrue your actions. I prefer to let the Administrators of Wikipedia do their jobs, as they see their duties to be, so they will be aware of other users trolling my page, even though that might continue the outing began on other pages. Thanks. --TK-CP (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your wish, sure. Besides, it means less work for me, so what's not to like? ;) --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sid

Hey Sid, I just noticed, back in the day (after the mass blocking of RW editors) I unblocked you twice [1] and pleaded your cause. How's about showing good faith and unblocking me at RW? or showing some neutrality and arguing my case? Better yet, if the mobacracy is trying to instill community standards now, let's see some tolerance for diversity. Thanks much. nobs (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent block history shows that you received

a 30 minute block for bringing WP business to RW
a 24 hour block for bringing WP business to RW
a 48 hour block for bringing WP business to RW
a 48 hour block for bringing WP business to RW
a 1 week block for bringing WP business to RW
a 1 month block for bringing WP business to RW

And now you want me to unblock you so you can continue to bring WP business to RW? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. --Sid 3050 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it ain't; it's Sid bidniss, and RW bidniss as well (if RW is to be something other than Encyclopdia Dramatica with a clean face someday). I could help. And there ain't no way you can ever make the case I edited in bad faith....anywhere..... nobs (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey, and the one week block was for "I've had enough of RobS and his shit!!!", not for WP business as you said. This was even after the whoever it was said I could discuss dispute resolution on my talk page.

Sid, time to show leadership. Time to set an example. Let's be fair. Everyone's entitled to a few mistakes, but the bottomline is, I'm trying to hard to help you guys and your project. Treating me like trash without cause doesn't help you case. nobs (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribs before that block show that you tried to continue WP business on your user talk page, asking us to "strip out the names of Lipson, Brian Macdonald, et al from the Stephanie Simon article" and saying that "Arbcom is going to view the privacy rights of TK, tmt, PalMD, Andy Schlafly" and that "none of you guys would last a week without perma bans". Oh and "Cause of NPA, CIVIL, Stalking, Harassment, etc etc etc, you guys wouldn't last long if Andy was an actice WP user." The block reason might not explicitly mention Wikipedia, but it's kinda obvious, especially when one looks at your contribs before the block.

Also, two important notes: RationalWiki is not your forum to discuss Wikipedia content issues. And my Wikipedia user talk page is not your forum to discuss blocks you received on RationalWiki. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]