User talk:Deloitte - Revision history

Deloitte: clearing

2008-10-26T23:59:57Z

clearing

Deloitte at 23:24, 26 October 2008

2008-10-26T23:24:30Z

Deloitte at 23:09, 26 October 2008

2008-10-26T23:09:49Z

Deloitte at 23:06, 26 October 2008

2008-10-26T23:06:46Z

Deloitte at 23:02, 26 October 2008

2008-10-26T23:02:21Z

Deloitte: no thank you.,

2008-10-26T23:00:28Z

no thank you.,

Moulton: /* Please explain ... */ More traffic...

2008-10-26T22:31:22Z

Please explain ...: More traffic...

Moulton: /* Please explain ... */ Response to Deloitte.

2008-10-26T22:18:27Z

Please explain ...: Response to Deloitte.

Moulton: Continuing open dialogue with Andy Lehrer, regarding his complaints about Tim Usher

2008-10-26T22:12:40Z

Continuing open dialogue with Andy Lehrer, regarding his complaints about Tim Usher

Deloitte: taken to email

2008-10-26T21:52:38Z

taken to email

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 26 October 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Greeting}}		{{Greeting}}
−
−	~~Moulton wrote:~~
−
−	::Please understand that if you contact me to ask me to investigate some aspect of online culture, I am going to interpret that to mean you are asking for a scientific review of the cultural phenomenon that you are raising to my attention.
−
−	~~Reply:~~
−
−	I ''never'' initated contact with you or nor have I ever asked you to investigate anything. You contacted me and demanded an explanation of my redaction[http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeloitte&diff=72043&oldid=72009] and I sent you a reply via email which you then gracelessly posted.
−
−	~~Moulton wrote:~~
−	:::It's too late for you to avoid the role you adopted, as both a recipient of a public accusation and as a publisher of an accusation. Each side must now produce evidence, analysis, and reasoning to support their respective theses, and demonstrate how they have attempted to falsify each hypothesis on the table.
−
−	~~Reply:~~
−
−	One does not adopt a role by being the target of harassment - in that case the role is foisted upon you and I never made a public accusation here, nor did I ever accept your role as a mediator. You have attempted to insert yourself in this situation for an unknown reason. Given the fact that a) you have persistently posted emails without permission and despite being asked not to thus destroying my capacity to trust you and thus destroying your ability to act as a mediator b) you are now falsely claiming that I asked for you to "investigate" anything and falsely claimed that I initiated contact with you when the opposite is true c) you falsely claim that I have made a "public accusation" I'm afraid that I lack confidence in your abilities, have no trust in your capacity to either be neutral or assess evidence (how can I trust someone to intrepret evidence when they fabricate claims such as the two above) and reject your self-appointed role as a mediator. Indeed, given that you were banned from wikipedia indefinitely for engaging in "outing" of editors I think that if anything you're in a conflict of interest here given that it is "outing" that is the issue in question. [[User:Deloitte\|Deloitte]] 16:00, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:24, 26 October 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Reply:		Reply:

−	One does not adopt a role by being the target of harassment - in that case the role is foisted upon you and I never made a public accusation here, nor did I ever accept your role as a mediator. You have attempted to insert yourself in this situation for an unknown reason. Given the fact that a) you have persistently posted emails without permission and despite being asked not to thus destroying my capacity to trust you and thus destroying your ability to act as a mediator b) you are now falsely claiming that I asked for you to "investigate" anything and falsely claimed that I initiated contact with you when the opposite is true c) you falsely claim that I have made a "public accusation" I'm afraid that I lack confidence in your abilities, have no trust in your ~~ability~~ to either be neutral or assess evidence (how can I trust someone to intrepret evidence when they fabricate claims such as the two above) and reject your self-appointed role as a mediator. [[User:Deloitte\|Deloitte]] 16:00, 26 October 2008 (PDT)	+	One does not adopt a role by being the target of harassment - in that case the role is foisted upon you and I never made a public accusation here, nor did I ever accept your role as a mediator. You have attempted to insert yourself in this situation for an unknown reason. Given the fact that a) you have persistently posted emails without permission and despite being asked not to thus destroying my capacity to trust you and thus destroying your ability to act as a mediator b) you are now falsely claiming that I asked for you to "investigate" anything and falsely claimed that I initiated contact with you when the opposite is true c) you falsely claim that I have made a "public accusation" I'm afraid that I lack confidence in your abilities, have no trust in your capacity to either be neutral or assess evidence (how can I trust someone to intrepret evidence when they fabricate claims such as the two above) and reject your self-appointed role as a mediator. Indeed, given that you were banned from wikipedia indefinitely for engaging in "outing" of editors I think that if anything you're in a conflict of interest here given that it is "outing" that is the issue in question. [[User:Deloitte\|Deloitte]] 16:00, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Reply:
-I ''never'' contacted you or asked you to investigate anything. You contacted me[http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeloitte&diff=72043&oldid=72009] and I sent you a reply via email which you then gracelessly posted.
+I ''never'' initated contact with you or nor have I ever asked you to investigate anything. You contacted me and demanded an explanation of my redaction[http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeloitte&diff=72043&oldid=72009] and I sent you a reply via email which you then gracelessly posted.
 Moulton wrote:

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 26 October 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Reply:		Reply:

−	One does not adopt a role by being the target of harassment - in that case the role is foisted upon you and I never made a public accusation here, nor did I ever accept your role as a mediator. You have attempted to insert yourself in this situation for an unknown reason. Given the fact that a) you have persistently posted emails without permission and despite being asked not to b) you are now falsely claiming that I asked for you to "investigate" anything and falsely claimed that I initiated contact with you ~~and~~ c) you falsely claim that I have made a "public accusation" I'm afraid that I lack confidence in your abilities and reject your self-appointed role as a mediator. [[User:Deloitte\|Deloitte]] 16:00, 26 October 2008 (PDT)	+	One does not adopt a role by being the target of harassment - in that case the role is foisted upon you and I never made a public accusation here, nor did I ever accept your role as a mediator. You have attempted to insert yourself in this situation for an unknown reason. Given the fact that a) you have persistently posted emails without permission and despite being asked not to thus destroying my capacity to trust you and thus destroying your ability to act as a mediator b) you are now falsely claiming that I asked for you to "investigate" anything and falsely claimed that I initiated contact with you when the opposite is true c) you falsely claim that I have made a "public accusation" I'm afraid that I lack confidence in your abilities, have no trust in your ability to either be neutral or assess evidence (how can I trust someone to intrepret evidence when they fabricate claims such as the two above) and reject your self-appointed role as a mediator. [[User:Deloitte\|Deloitte]] 16:00, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Reply:
-I ''never'' contacted you or asked you to investigate anything. You contacted me[http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeloitte&diff=72043&oldid=72009].
+I ''never'' contacted you or asked you to investigate anything. You contacted me[http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeloitte&diff=72043&oldid=72009] and I sent you a reply via email which you then gracelessly posted.
 Moulton wrote:

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Greeting}}
-== Please explain ... ==
+Moulton wrote:
-Hi Deloitte.
+::Please understand that if you contact me to ask me to investigate some aspect of online culture, I am going to interpret that to mean you are asking for a scientific review of the cultural phenomenon that you are raising to my attention.
-Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825|this redaction]?
+Reply:
-Thanks.
+I ''never'' contacted you or asked you to investigate anything. You contacted me[http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeloitte&diff=72043&oldid=72009].
-[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)
+Moulton wrote:
+:::It's too late for you to avoid the role you adopted, as both a recipient of a public accusation and as a publisher of an accusation.  Each side must now produce evidence, analysis, and reasoning to support their respective theses, and demonstrate how they have attempted to falsify each hypothesis on the table.
-:::On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Andy Lehrer wrote:
+Reply:
-:::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (PDT)
+One does not adopt a role by being the target of harassment - in that case the role is foisted upon you and I never made a public accusation here, nor did I ever accept your role as a mediator. You have attempted to insert yourself in this situation for an unknown reason. Given the fact that a) you have persistently posted emails without permission and despite being asked not to b) you are now falsely claiming that I asked for you to "investigate" anything and falsely claimed that I initiated contact with you and c) you falsely claim that I have made a "public accusation" I'm afraid that I lack confidence in your abilities and reject your self-appointed role as a mediator. [[User:Deloitte|Deloitte]] 16:00, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:31, 26 October 2008
Line 74:		Line 74:

	::[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (PDT)		::[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (PDT)
		+
		+	:::More traffic...
		+
		+	:::On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Andy Lehrer wrote:
		+	<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>
		+	I can't edit the user page, I can edit the talk page though but I have no desire to engage in a public debate on my right to privacy given that doing so would only exacerbate the situation. If I'm concerned about my real name being used online and libellous statements being made how would it make any sense for me to engage in a public discussion on that?
		+	</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
		+	:::Given that you published accusations about Tim Usher (which may or may not be valid), you are now obliged to defend your claims in public. It is not uncommon for people from the Wikisphere to throw accusations around. In my role as a scientist, I ask people to support their assertions with evidence, reasoning, and analysis, in accord with the protocols of the scientific method.
		+	<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>
		+	I appreciate that you made a public inquiry. Given that the whole issue here is personal privacy please appreciate the fact that I do not wish to engage in a public discussion. Respecting that means not posting private correspondence without permission.
		+	</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
		+	:::It's too late for you to avoid the role you adopted, as both a recipient of a public accusation and as a publisher of an accusation. Each side must now produce evidence, analysis, and reasoning to support their respective theses, and demonstrate how they have attempted to falsify each hypothesis on the table.
		+
		+	:::[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 And frankly, Tim is being incredibly hypocritical. It seems he objects to the fact that somebody (not me) referred to him as "Timothy Usher" at some point on wikipedia (this because his previous account was User:Timothy Usher - Proabivouac was his sockpuppeting account). For him to object to being outed and then proceed to out me by using my real name is completely hypocritical.
 </blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
-You may not care, but I care, since you contacted me about the issue.
+::You may not care, but I care, since you contacted me about the issue.
-I have already defined ''corrupt'' for you as some variant of unethical or unscrupulous practice, such as using one's administrative powers to disadvantage or disempower an editor with whom one has an editorial disagreement.
+::I have already defined ''corrupt'' for you as some variant of unethical or unscrupulous practice, such as using one's administrative powers to disadvantage or disempower an editor with whom one has an editorial disagreement.
-I am not an administrator who can fix anything.  I am a scientist and academic who researches and writes about cyberspace cultures and communities.
+::I am not an administrator who can fix anything.  I am a scientist and academic who researches and writes about cyberspace cultures and communities.
-Please understand that if you ask me to investigate some aspest of online culture, I am going to interpret that to mean you are asking for a scientific review of the cultural phenomenon that you are raising to my attention.  It is my custom to acknowledge the role of other scholars who influence my work.
+::Please understand that if you contact me to ask me to investigate some aspect of online culture, I am going to interpret that to mean you are asking for a scientific review of the cultural phenomenon that you are raising to my attention.  It is my custom to acknowledge the role of other scholars who influence my work.  It is also my custom to publish my findings.
-[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (PDT)
+::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 26 October 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Greeting}}		{{Greeting}}
		+
		+	== Please explain ... ==
		+
		+	Hi Deloitte.
		+
		+	Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825\|this redaction]?
		+
		+	Thanks.
		+
		+	[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)
		+
		+	:Deloitte replies by E-Mail...
		+	<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote>
		+	From: Deloitte <BR>
		+	To: Moulton <BR>
		+	Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:58 PM<BR>
		+	Subject: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR>
		+	Mailed-by: web11.bigbiz.com<BR>
		+	<P>
		+	I redacted a defamatory and libelous personal attack since the talk pages are crawled by google. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+homeontherange+mywikibiz
		+	<P>
		+	Probviouac was using MyWikiBiz' talk pages to perpetuate a personal vendetta he seems to have after he was banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review for "outing" people and engaging in personal harassment apparently on behalf of SlimVirgin. - see http://mywikibiz.com/Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1#.22Krimpet.22_coverup "The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a tranvestite as per the Review's staff) and Jayjg.Proabivouac 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)"
		+	<P>
		+	This sort of thing might end up being a problem for MyWikiBiz since having personal attacks on talk pages is inconsistent with being about to "author your legacy" etc. You might want to consider removing talk pages from the google crawl in order to prevent this problem in the future.
		+	<P>
		+	BTW, Probviouac has vandalized my user page, if I can use that term http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User:Deloitte&diff=prev&oldid=72068
		+	<P>
		+	For some reason I can't edit http://mywikibiz.com/User:Deloitte - can you please remove his post?
		+	<P>
		+	Thanks
		+	</Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote>
		+	:Deloitte, please identify the specific remarks that you allege are false and defamatory.
		+
		+	:Would each party provide evidence, reasoning, and analysis to support their respective versions or accounts of the disputed material.
		+
		+	:[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 13:36, 26 October 2008 (PDT)
		+
		+	Calling someone "corrupt", "dishonest" etc is defamatory and libellous. Also, the use of real names in this context is harassment and may have real life implications which speak to damages. I'm sure if some posted "[Moulton's real name here] is a corrupt and dishonest wikipedia sockpuppeteer... etc" you would agree, particularly if a current or prospective employer were to google your name and find that.
		+
		+	Besides, those sorts of attacks are at counterpurposes with the objective of MyWikiBiz which is to allow one to "author your legacy". [[User:Deloitte\|Deloitte]] 14:08, 26 October 2008 (PDT)
		+
		+	:Corrupt practices are unscrupulous or unethical practices. Have you asked Proabiviouac what aspects of your practices he considers unscrupulous, unethical, corrupt, or untruthful?
		+
		+	:I don't know your history on Wikipedia, but my experience with the site is that corruption is rampant and accuracy is in short supply. Ethical editors who promote accuracy tend not to last very long at Wikipedia and related sister project sites.
		+
		+	:[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 14:39, 26 October 2008 (PDT)
		+
		+	::Deloitte writes:
		+	<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>
		+	From: Andy Lehrer <BR>
		+	To: Barry Kort <BR>
		+	Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:48 PM<BR>
		+	Subject: Re: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR>
		+	Mailed-by: gmail.com<BR>
		+	<P>
		+	I don't really care what of my behaviour (real or alleged) Tim considers "corrupt", it's not his call, particularly when he has allied himself with administrators such as Jayjg and SlimVirgin who are almost universally considered "corrupt" by wikipedia critics and particularly when he himself has engaged in "sockpuppeting". In any case, in the real world the term corrupt implies some sort of financial misconduct, bribery etc. I understand that it's used as hyperbole but I don't appreciate having my real name linked to the word and I think it's quite clear how it would be libellous. Certainly if someone posted "Barry Kort is dishonest and corrupt" on a website and it creeped into your google rankings you would not be pleased - particularly if you were applying for jobs in an era where employers increasingly "google" prospective employees.
		+	<P>
		+	When people get into these ridiculous online fights they have to remember that there is a real person at the other end who lives in the real world and has real concerns and that using hyperbolic language against them may have real life implications particularly when you "out" them by using their real name.
		+	<P>
		+	I thought you were some sort of administrator or something and could actually "fix" the problem. If you're just interested in engaging in some sort of theoretical discussion then it makes more sense for me to just talk to Gregory or another admin directly.
		+	<P>
		+	But please, have enough respect for my privacy not to post my email address (as you did initially) or my email without permission.
		+	<P>
		+	And frankly, Tim is being incredibly hypocritical. It seems he objects to the fact that somebody (not me) referred to him as "Timothy Usher" at some point on wikipedia (this because his previous account was User:Timothy Usher - Proabivouac was his sockpuppeting account). For him to object to being outed and then proceed to out me by using my real name is completely hypocritical.
		+	</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
		+	You may not care, but I care, since you contacted me about the issue.
		+
		+	I have already defined ''corrupt'' for you as some variant of unethical or unscrupulous practice, such as using one's administrative powers to disadvantage or disempower an editor with whom one has an editorial disagreement.
		+
		+	I am not an administrator who can fix anything. I am a scientist and academic who researches and writes about cyberspace cultures and communities.
		+
		+	Please understand that if you ask me to investigate some aspest of online culture, I am going to interpret that to mean you are asking for a scientific review of the cultural phenomenon that you are raising to my attention. It is my custom to acknowledge the role of other scholars who influence my work.
		+
		+	[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 26 October 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Greeting}}		{{Greeting}}
−
−	~~== Please explain ... ==~~
−
−	~~Hi Deloitte.~~
−
−	~~Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825\|this redaction]?~~
−
−	~~Thanks.~~
−
−	~~[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)~~
−
−	~~:Deloitte replies by E-Mail...~~
−	~~<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote>~~
−	~~From: Deloitte <BR>~~
−	~~To: Moulton <BR>~~
−	~~Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:58 PM<BR>~~
−	~~Subject: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR>~~
−	~~Mailed-by: web11.bigbiz.com<BR>~~
−	~~<P>~~
−	~~I redacted a defamatory and libelous personal attack since the talk pages are crawled by google. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+homeontherange+mywikibiz~~
−	~~<P>~~
−	Probviouac was using MyWikiBiz' talk pages to perpetuate a personal vendetta he seems to have after he was banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review for "outing" people and engaging in personal harassment apparently on behalf of SlimVirgin. - see http://mywikibiz.com/Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1#.22Krimpet.22_coverup "The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a tranvestite as per the Review's staff) and Jayjg.Proabivouac 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)"
−	~~<P>~~
−	This sort of thing might end up being a problem for MyWikiBiz since having personal attacks on talk pages is inconsistent with being about to "author your legacy" etc. You might want to consider removing talk pages from the google crawl in order to prevent this problem in the future.
−	~~<P>~~
−	~~BTW, Probviouac has vandalized my user page, if I can use that term http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User:Deloitte&diff=prev&oldid=72068~~
−	~~<P>~~
−	~~For some reason I can't edit http://mywikibiz.com/User:Deloitte - can you please remove his post?~~
−	~~<P>~~
−	~~Thanks~~
−	~~</Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote>~~
−	~~:Deloitte, please identify the specific remarks that you allege are false and defamatory.~~
−
−	~~:Would each party provide evidence, reasoning, and analysis to support their respective versions or accounts of the disputed material.~~
−
−	~~:[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 13:36, 26 October 2008 (PDT)~~
−
−	Calling someone "corrupt", "dishonest" etc is defamatory and libellous. Also, the use of real names in this context is harassment and may have real life implications which speak to damages. I'm sure if some posted "[Moulton's real name here] is a corrupt and dishonest wikipedia sockpuppeteer... etc" you would agree, particularly if a current or prospective employer were to google your name and find that.
−
−	~~Besides, those sorts of attacks are at counterpurposes with the objective of MyWikiBiz which is to allow one to "author your legacy". [[User:Deloitte\|Deloitte]] 14:08, 26 October 2008 (PDT)~~
−
−	~~:Corrupt practices are unscrupulous or unethical practices. Have you asked Proabiviouac what aspects of your practices he considers unscrupulous, unethical, corrupt, or untruthful?~~
−
−	:I don't know your history on Wikipedia, but my experience with the site is that corruption is rampant and accuracy is in short supply. Ethical editors who promote accuracy tend not to last very long at Wikipedia and related sister project sites.
−
−	~~:[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 14:39, 26 October 2008 (PDT)~~