Talk:Actuarial Outpost/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Actuarial Outpost

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

The spin-off controversy

Protection

On request, this article is temporarily protected now due to heated editing; please work out your disagreements on the talk page so the page can be unlocked! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I have initiated further steps of dispute resolution. I have submitted a request to the Mediation Cabal in an effort to get another view on this matter ^demon^{[yell at me]} /00:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Initial Comments and Responses

Having been an expert and participant with this topic, I feel that my entries are factual and legitimate. If Avraham is opposed to having the record reflect accurate events about the actuarial outpost then I am very disappointed in his intolerance. History often has differing points of view or interpretations as to the reason or explanation of events.

Would a true historian only present the side of European settlers if the topic were interactions between native Americans and European settlers? Or would the historian attempt to interview sources from both sides of a conflict in an attempt to reflect a more unbiased account of actual events.

Avraham, if you want the entry to portay an actual accounting of events then I think you should be open to points of view that may diverge from your own biased perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA (talk • contribs) May 18, 2006.

/sigh

If you are whom I think you are, let us set the record straight. You left/were asked to leave based on your actions, which may charitably be called puerile, and were more likely indicative of some deep-seated bias and POV against various members of society at large and the actuarial community in general. That creates an almost inconquerable bias. Further, Wikipedia is a repository of FACT not OPINION. By all means, create a scathing diatribe on your personal page, or even better, create a user sub-page for the Outpost and write what you wish. The ARTICLE itself needs to remain neutral.

You have a point about the anonymous registration being rescinded, and I have added that. But the tone of the article needs to remain scholarly and neutral regardless of your, mine, or anyone elses opinion as to what occurred to you, or to anyone else for that matter.

Personal vendettas do not belong in an encyclopædia. -- Avi 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who is deleting facts, not opinions. Someone else gave me the following analogy: if I were writing an article about a TV series, say Happy Days, it is entirely factual to say the series inspired several spin off series, say Lavergne and Shirley.

If I were to say that the Amoral Outpost were to have inspired a spin off web site from certain members who were unhappy with the loss of anonymous registration and unhappy with higher levels of moderation, this is entirely factual. This is not a statement of opinion.

For some reason you want to suppress facts and write your own version of history which ignores facts. That also is a fact, and not an opinion, Mr. deletist.

People also have opinons on the history of the amoral outpost which are expressed on this site:

(members only access to certain parts).

As far as glenn.ca? There is no information about your entry at that blog. It is just a shameless plug for an entity that used to have an association with the amoral outpost.

I am not editing your opinions ( the site is growing in influence? ). Why must you edit other people's facts? Is it based merely on your own biased opinions that certain facts need to be repressed? Should we not talk about other uncomfortable facts in history, like internment of Japanese citizens? Should we deny that the holocost took place and delete the record of unpleasant facts? Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

Comparing this to internment is plain silly. Create a page for your own site if you wish, your very actions reek of a non-neutral point of view which by wiki policy prevents you from placing you opinions into the article. By the way, the User:Tom Troceen bit is low, even for you. -- Avi 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your baseless accusations are low, even for you. I am a neutral observer of events. My point of view is less biased than yours. I am fine with facts. Your comparison of the amoral outpost to IBM is silly. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

Accusations? Pray tell what accusations? Other than your creating multiple ID's (or getting friends to post the very same text) to foist your personal bias on the article. Create your own on your site. "Amoral outpost" how is that neutral? /sigh Immaturity does not become you, even now. Please step back and consider what you are doing from a bit of a less partial position. -- Avi 22:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside View

On looking at this, it looks like a content dispute, not vandalism. REGARDLESS of how this supposed user is viewed on the original site, that opinion cannot be carred over to Wikipedia (I deal with the same issue over an editor over at Ikonboard). Reading the material, I do agree that it does need to be tuned slightly into a more NPOV tone, but the content itself seems appropriate. Many articles do contain sections on spin-off sites, if those sites are not notable enough to warrent their own article (ie: Fails WP:WEB). I'll do a bit of rewriting as a neutral outsider, if you all want. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Even those created by less than 5 people, all trolls specifically to mock the community that finally threw them out? It would fail noteworthiness. -- Avi 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course such a small-scale site would fail WP:WEB, but it seems to be a point of notability within the history of AO, which means it's warrented within the article, IMHO. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from injecting your personal bias into this Avraham. There are over 50 registered users and many lurkers who benefit from the spin off site. I suppose the CAS board considered the Actuarial Outpost as founded by a group of trolls as well. Perhaps you consider the spirit that created the original board as not noteworthy as well. Your own discription of it states it was created on two principles: anonymous registration and low levels of moderation. Given the current commercial ownership of the site, both of these principles no longer remain. I think it is noteworthy to former members who left and value these principles to be aware of the alternative. I understand the original board wants to suppress this information based on its own bias. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

I'm going to work at cleaning up this article to a more NPOV stance. Also, despite your current issues with each other, you need to try and remain civil. If things don't calm down, I will recommend going to the Mediation Committee. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /22:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to let a neutral outsider handle this content dispute. Being harassed by Avraham is a non-productive endeavor. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

User:Someone with a Life has once again vandalized the compromise as proposed by an outsider. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

Spin Offs

Spin Off

Certainly the larger board does not want a mention a spin off. But I still think the existence of a spin off is of historical significance. If a Russian revolution was unsuccesful is it still not noteworthy in the historical record for having occured?

The spin off did happen. Hundreds of former members have visited and read the spin off board and many of them have registered names or responded to threads as guests.

Most of them appreciate having the freedom to comment about the activities of the original board without having to fear being banned.

They also can freely comment about the commercial site sponsor without fear of retaliation or vendetta attacks. One of which occured today, as the poster on the original board researched the IP address of someone who posted a Wikipedia entry here and called for their actuarial employer to take action against them for posting to Wikipedia during work hours. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

This is an internal dispute

The site that's doing all the complaining - and started all of this malicious editing is not worthy of comment. First, they have about 3 active users, not a hundred as they claim. Check the site yourself. Hardly significant. The site goes days without posts. They have less than 2 thousand posts, most of them by a mere handful of posters. And they're single busiest section by far - available only to logged in viewers - is nothing other than a complaint section about the AO. It's a blog for disgruntled trolls more than a community forum. The posts there bear me out on this as well. I'll also note that as prior webmaster for over 5 years for the AO, we've had numerous spinoffs - at least three. All of them without exception have failed miserably, shrivelled and died. That's just disgruntled posters - not a trend, not a significant event, and not worth noting.

A simple search on 'actuarial discussion forum' shows all of this to be true - the AO is the only significant discussion forum. It's been around for close to a decade now and grown non-stop during that time.

In short, a few disgruntled posters (who've been banned by the AO) who decided to deface the wikipedia page does not constitute an event - or anything other than what it is; a few disgruntled actuarial students out to create a stir. All forums have this type of cycle of trolls getting banned then those same trolls setting out to cause trouble. Catering to it has nothing to do with being factual or representative.

The AO has been around for years and is a significant site in the actuarial community. This troll forum, well, if it's so significant, give it a year. Then see if it's still around.

-glenn

If glenn wishes to add mention of the other spin offs, I am fine with that. Please restore the link to the current spin off. It is noteworthy.

I suppose prior revolutions if unsuccesful are not noteworthy? Let us please purge the historical record of all former governments as not noteworthy. All small countries should also be stricken from the record as not noteworthy. Maybe Canada should be removed as not noteworthy or as a footnote in the countries of North America - given it's size in relation to the USA. I am, of course, being sarcastic, something that often offends people on the AO.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA (talk • contribs) .

Hmm <2000 posts compared to >1.5 million. You're an actuary, is that comparable? -- Avi 00:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the content of the 2pacs on your site? I would not judge the noteworthiness of a book based on the number of meaningless words contained between the binding. --Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

Re-writing of "Spin off"

Thank you, ^demon, that was a good attempt. I was bold and re-wrote the accusations of improriety, recasting them as accusation and not fact. There is no proof that this was anything other than someone who violated the community's guidelines fomenting trouble for the sake of retaliation. I also merged the section into "Transfer," as it closes the History section. -- Avi 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the current edit to be much better than the POV edit war that was going on. Joe, do you agree to the current revision? ^demon^{[yell at me]} /00:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I prefer demon's first attempt with a spin off section. I do not approve of avraham continuing to tilt the description to his own point of view and of his removing of the name of the spin off

I am begining to think that Avraham has some financial interest in the originating site, because historical accuracy can not be his true motive. He also has refered to me by the names of other posters. I am not fallout nor 11p.

Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

Fair point regarding the name, although it is linked at the bottom. However, if yu feel that it is a gross necessity to have the name in the text, I can agree with that. As for financial interest, I wish :D I did contribute money to the site years ago when G&T were more penurious, thus my "Site Supporter" tag, but it's hard to have a financial interest in a board that doesn't charge for admission, isn't it? I'll add the name back in to the text now. -- Avi 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it IS in the text already, it just isn't hot-linked. If you want an HTML link in the text, fine, but realize that it is redundant to the one in the link section. Which one would you prefer? -- Avi 00:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, after being beter informed as to the AO history, the spin-off in question is really not notable as these things go, and should have no mention. -- Avi 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the spin-off noteworthy?

We've had three spin-off's, glenn? In that case this one is not noteworthy and maybe no mention of it should be made. ^demon, what do you think? -- Avi 00:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If the site is considered so UN noteworthy, can you explain why the owner of the domain name actuarialoutpost.com, DW Simpson, who sponsors the original site purchased the domain name rebealactuary.com after the spin off site was created? Certainly they would not bother to go through the trouble of registering a competing site's domain name if it wasn't even noteworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA (talk • contribs) .

Sure, have you ever heard of cybersquatting? Sometimes people pay money to prevent nuisances--that doesn't make it noteworthy. -- Avi 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

lol. Your bias is showing. It is very noteworthy that they would bother to register the domain name. It is not unlike an activity that Microsoft would use in order to harass a noteworthy competitor--Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 00:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't even find the spinoffs

http://pub12.ezboard.com/bactuarial18384

There's one dead forum, started because profanity wasn't allowed on the AO. There are at least two others that I recall, neither of which I can even find in Google anymore. They also were hosted on 'free forum' places and have simply expired. And there's likely been others that I've forgotten.

It'll be clear to the NPOV folks that this type of behavior is common on popular discussion forums that are moderated. It's hardly a unique situation to have trolls attempting to tear down a site once they've been banned. That's not noteworthy.

The AO had over 700 people online today. This troll site had 15 people online today - and that's the most it's ever had. The fact that it's peak (of only 15 people) resulted from this wikipedia issue, and that many of those 15 were likely not even members of this site but instead were either one time visitors or moderators/management from the AO seeing what was going on - that should show that this site is neither a populated site of any significance,nor is it any sort of significant departure from the AO community. It's a handful of trolls that have been banned, nothing more and nothing less. Take away traffic from myself and a half dozen moderators and administrators from the AO and what do you have? A peak of about 5 members online - and that's the whole population of the site onboard at once as a result of this wiki issue.

Given the lack of members (demonstratably just a handful form looking at the members list), it's lack of age - it's only a few months old if even that old, it's lack of posts, and the fact that this has been tried before and failed, this site is insignificant compared to the AO.

Best case scenario it sticks around a year and has 10 members. Even if that was the case it would hardly warrant notice as anything more than an insignificant mostly dead forum. And it's certainly not even reached that exalted status. Three members with a couple of month old free forum does not represent any sort of noticeable or significant departure from a community the size of the AO. All it represents is the ability of someone to get sign up for a free hosting account.

If there's any sort of need for further justification that this site is insignificant, check the backlinks. The AO has plenty of links from quality sites, educational institutions and professional bodies and organizations. This troll site has basically no one interested in linking to it. That's because the community doesn't care about this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.7.136.166 (talk • contribs) .

Some more edits

"Somewhat concurrent with this transfer was a withdrawal from true anonymous registration to the requirement of a non-public e-mail address. True names were still not required, nor was the e-mail publicized. Further, a small group of posters chafed at their perception of increased scrutiny by moderators. Some posters even theorized that some of the moderators, who participated in political discussions, were using their position to threaten posters who disagreed with them. Many of these posters retaliated with speculation as to moderator identity, a bannable offense, or by making other accusations. Eventually, the moderators and administrator responded to both sides by handing out warnings and, ultimately, banning some members. In response, some of the banned posters formed a spin-off site entitled Rebel Actuary."

That's a snip from the current article. It's factually incorrect. I was the webmaster during this period and note the following: - the requirement of the non-public email address was not concurrent with the transfer. It preceded the transfer by a year, maybe two. It was implemented by the administrator of the site as a way to prevent multiple registrations by trolls. This requirement is completely unrelated to the transfer of the site, however the fact that this connection is being attempted to be drawn should make clear the bias of these trolls. In short, this section is factually incorrect and exemplifies the agenda of this person. - 'a small group of psters chafed'. 'some posters theorized'. 'Many of these posters?' Ahem. Perhaps given how heated this is, idle speculation might be withdrawn. - there's nothing new in this section I quoted. This forum, like any busy forum, goes through cycles where it's quiet, followed by periods of intense troll activity. The moderators struggle to keep a lid on the trolls, the trolls get dissatisfied and complain. Not the first time this has happened, won't be the last, and is true of any busy discussion forum. The fact that there are a few vocal complainers is not noteworthy, it's not new, and it's not unique. Nor is it worth mentioning.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.7.136.166 (talk • contribs) aka glenn - former Actuarial outpost webmaster.

Comments on Some more edits

The inaccurate wording that you say is biased was Avarum's attempt at re-wording two facts. His entry says the AO was formed and "left" the CAS based on two principles: anonymous registration and low levels of moderation. My original language stated that some members were unhappy that the current site was now violating these basic principles which founded the site. It appears that you not only have strayed from the original principles but that you now also favor personal attacks and vendettas, as you posted IP addresses, employer information and called for action to be taken against employees who dare to post anything that might indicate that someone left your site. You continue an attempt to taunt and intimidate people on your site, by naming employer and location. An encylopedia entry is not an advertisement for your site. You need to respect that other people in this world can have differing opinions than yours. It's fine for you to engage in censorship and persecution on your own site, but to carry it over into someone's personal life and onto other sites on the internet is beyond the pale.--Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

More Comments on the Original Entry

It claims to be about "the largest and most dynamic such gathering of actuaries in the world." How many credentialled actuaries are members? Can even that basic fact be documented or sourced? I happen to think the site is dominated by non-actuaries, students who might hope to become actuaries some day. It might well be the smallest gathering of true actuaries and a large gathering of poker players, students, pot heads and trolls. The whole article is nothing more than hot air conjecture written by someone with an interest in self promoting something he may have a financial interest in.

There is very little substance of note contained in the article as far as the general poulation is concerned, much less for actuaries. Perhaps if you were writing an encyclopedia for liberal leaning, non-religous students hoping to become actuaries then it might warrant an entry in that encyclopedia as an appropriate place to waste time or find a recruiter from the sponsor of the site.

[The above commentary was passed on to me from a true actuary who used to frequent the site. He said it contains a flavor for the style which made him so unpopular - dry wit and sarcasm - something most of the nerds there didn't understand] Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning users by name

As much as people may idolize pseudonyms such as "Abducens" etc. None of these people pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. That the AO itself is notable is under discussion now, and I firmly believe it is. The only individual people whose names bear mentioning are the founders and current admin. Not 2pac, not 11p, not myself, no-one else. It is the site that is worth mention, not its members. Please do not pollute the entry with personal issues. By all means, use your own site to disparage whomever and whatever you please, but a modicum of civility, maturity, and respect for others is a requirement of civilization, let alone Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi 13:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the memorable posters (2pac, 11p, abducens,... et al) had more to do with the growth of the AO then some person who simply provided the hardware. If baseball is succesful is it more to do with the players or the owners? Do people seek owner autographs, jerseys,... The reason the AO grew was beacuse of the entertainment and other content that the users provided, and certain of the posters were certainly more notebale both in their quality and their prolificness. The fact that some new poster does not know the history of clank or [|rebel] actuary never was is beside the point. If everyone already knows all the content of an article what is the point of an article? An article should educate the reader, for instance, where did notable phrases in the lexicon of a non-notable site come from.Don Keynoteme 13:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that mentioning some of the most prominent users by name is inappropriate, especially if it is done in a factual way. For instance, it would be totally appropriate to mention people that were important to the history of a country in an article about that country, even if these people were not founders or leaders. SkipSmith 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The above account only has three edits, all on this topic. -- Avi 20:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no analogue to what you are describing. There is no one who had a substantial enough effect on the entire makeup of the forum, other than its founders, that deserves mention. There is no Benjamin Franklin to be held up against Washington and Madison, to use your analogy. Wikipeia is not meant for vanity pages for individuals, we have user pages for that. -- Avi 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

First, what does it matter how many edits I have made? Is the value of an idea based on how prolific the author is, or on its own merits? Let's set the ad hominem stuff aside, please. Second, why is mentioning prominent figures in board history a "vanity" project? The user 2Pac is by far the most prolific poster in AO history, and even has an emoticon named after him. Abducens won a landslide vote inviting him back to the board after he was banned, and coined phrases that are regularly used on the board today. These posters and a few others have had a significant influence on the makeup of the forum, and IMO should be included in any history of the board. SkipSmith 01:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Avi's editorializing

(... If you are so confident that your site is notable, by all means, start your own article.)

Something being notable for its own merrits is not the same as being notable enough to be mentioned in the context of something else that may or may not be notable. Is Glenn Cooke or Traci Christian notable on their own merrits? If not, then why mention them in the article on the AO? There is much mention in your current article of non-notable events, so your non-notable arguements that other elements that others have attempted to include in content is nothing more than a hollow excuse to control content to your own biased point of view. What is so notable about the blog glenn.ca which you have included in the links? Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 14:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple, the article is about the Actuarial Outpost; they started it. The three or four protest spin-offs are not in scope of the article; neither is the daily drama. This is not a blog, this is Wikipedia. -- Avi 14:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And the spin off sites continue the principles on which the AO forum was founded, itself a spin-off from the CAS site. I agree that this is Wikipedia, which is why many have questioned the need for an article on the AO site which is now owned by a non-notable actuarial recruiting company and has changed the primary purpose of the forum to generating recruiting commissions and not the free expression of ideas in a protected anonymous environment without the fear of retribution for disagreements that could occur in the "tightknit actuarial community." The type of retributions that glenn.ca now engages in because of a minor content dispute.Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 15:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you're beginning to sound like you're finding communists under every bed. The site is notable because of the volume of posting, both annual and aggregate. The people who founded and run it deserve to be mentioned. Space Lobster does not, Abducens does not, I do not, and you and your ilk do not either. I fail to see what you are not understanding. -- Avi 15:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A modicum of civility, maturity, and respect for others is a requirement of civilization, let alone Wikipedia

If the people who moderated and supported the AO possessed these things, then there would have been no need for a spin off (much less this current content dispute). It was the intolerance of those whom they disagreed with which caused the spin off. The latest actions of their uncivility can be seen on your link to the glenn.ca blog where he makes a personal attack based on this content dispute.Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The latest entries in the glenn.ca blog are now password protected, so I was unable to verify whether personal attacks based on this content dispute are taking place there SkipSmith 05:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion, which is not shared by the vast majority of the members of the AO, as can be seen by comparing usage statistics between your board and the AO. -- Avi 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that glenn.ca is carrying out his personal vendetta on his blog? Is it my opinion that he posted similar content on the AO? How would you know what the vast majority of members of the AO believed given the current tactics of fear and intimidation? No doubt, the current climate will support what the mods have influenced. If someone expresses a contrary opinion they get harassment by mods and bannishment. That is why a spin off site is notable. So that those who seek an alternative where they can freely comment can find one. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 15:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, if you really feel so put-upon by glenn's blog, fight back in a blog of your own. I understand www.blogspot.com allows you to host free ones. You do have a board of your own on which you are free to post whatever suppositions and accusations you feel, short of libel and slander. Secondly, there are no fear and intimidation tactics that I can see on the board. There are guidelines for civility and anonymity, which you yourself have broken in the past. I still have what I believe is your post (under another ID) about mod identities. Contrary opinions have always been able to be expressed, and as long as the basic guidelines of courtesy, acceptance of another's right to an opinion, and acceptance of the general norms that and large enough community must have in order to function. Your site is not notable as far as Wilipedia is concerned. It is not notable in and of itself, the AO may not be, and it is not notable withing the actuarial community, as the AO is. It neither requires nor suggests mention here. -- Avi 15:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a board of my own. I do post on a variety of boards. You know that there was a thread of fear and intimidation on the AO board, but that members were like "wow" and it eventually got deleted. Most of your other allegations are untrue, irrelevant, express outside bias and have no place in this discussion.Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Specific Names

Blisterino, Joe, Kentucky, or whatever you are calling yourself, please face it: Abducens is a nobody, a has-been, a dusty, forgotten codicil buried in a corner, perhaps crying for himself, but that is it. Ask any new member; ask anyone whose tenure on the forums began about two weeks after he was banned, they do not know who or what he is. There are a pitiful few people who idolize the concept of trollism and thus hold him to be their patron saint or something. He is completely underserving of mention. "Clank" is a sheer inanity, used by maybe six people; three of whom I reckon have no clue who first used it on the AO. More importantly, "clank," its use meaning "missed basket" or failure, far predated whatever pitful time Abducens spent on the board to begin with. Your crusade to inflate the desiccated egos of these has-beens is either Quixotic, egoistical, or just inane. Regardless, they are nothing more than the dustbin of the AO, and deserve no mention. No individual poster deserves mention; the originators and current admin are the only people who remotely deserve individual mention. Your, and your friend(s?), collective ego needs to be stroked and stoked elsewhere. May I suggest http://www.createphpbb.com/rebelactuary/ ? -- Avi 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First, can we please refrain from personal attacks and editorializing? Second, I'm sure there are plenty of new members who have no idea who Traci and Glenn are either, but that doesn't make them any less important to the history of the board. If we're writing an article on the history of a message board, a mention of current and past prominent members of the community is perfectly appropriate IMO, regardless of anyone's personal feelings about some of them. SkipSmith 05:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mentions of individual members are unnecessary, agree with Avi. TheActuary 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actuary, could you elaborate? Do you also mean Glenn and Traci, or just the individual members I mentioned? SkipSmith 17:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Those responsible for building the site are those only worth mentioning. TheActuary 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think all members of the AO community share credit for building the site, with some people more important than others. So the question is: who is important enough to merit a mention? I think we should try to set some objective standards on who gets mentioned. Avi has proposed we don't mention people who new users would be unaware of. Perhaps we could have a poll on the AO to see who the most widely known users are, and mention the winners here? SkipSmith 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. No one should be mentioned simply because they post there. Traci started the site, Glenn was the first to host it, Tom runs it now. They are not being mentioned because they post on the site, but because for all intents and purposes, it was their brainchild. Now, Tom runs it. No polls are necessary, as no one person is any more important as a poster than any other. It's rather simple, actually. -- Avi 01:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Avraham, these are excellent points that you have spelled out concretely and absolutely. Well done. -- TheActuary 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So the person who gets mentioned agrees that he should be mentioned? Brainchild? More like opportunist. People got banned from CAS. They were interesting people. Some business owner says, hey I might get add revenue from actuaries or be able to sell this site some day for beau coup bucks to some recruiting company. The business itself is not notable. The person who owned the server is not notable. The web site itself may not be notable, but if it is it is notable because the posters who made it grow made it so. IBM is not notable because they housed in an office building that was owned by Joe building owner. Exxon Mobil is not notable because some clerk in the department of energy regulates them. The server owner and regulator are LESS noteable than the people who made the AO forum what it is today. In fact, the AO grew in spite of them not because of them. Of course you may have a different opinion, but your opinon should not be expressed in an article. The article should be factual and not just express your opinions. Don Keynoteme 13:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First point: a message board is only as good as the community that participates on it, so to mention the founders without some discussion of those that post on the board makes no sense --- a message board isn't notable for existing, but because of what takes place on it. In fact, isn't that the reason given for not mentioning the spin-off boards --- that there isn't as active a community there? I'm sure the spin-off boards have the equivalent of Tracis, Glenns, and Toms too, but the only reason the AO and these people might deserve a mention is because of the community. Second point: some members of this community are more influential or active than others, and deserve special mention. Site supporters, for example, and those that had an extraordinary influence on the ways in which discussions are conducted. SkipSmith 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Skip, these are excellent points that you have spelled out concretely and absolutely. Well done. SkipSmith 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Skippy, please realize that any Wikipedia administrator can tell that TheActuary and I are two different people, but it was a cute try, so kudos for ingenuity, combined with ingenuousness :) -- Avi 13:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Will they also realize that TheActuary waterwheel and others are the same person and is also the person whose vanity is stroked/stoked by your article and links being named in the article? :) Don Keynoteme 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I accidentally posted without being signed in, exposing my IP address. Shall I warn my employer to expect a phone call? SkipSmith 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, you are missing the point yet again. It is not any specific person that makes the Actuarial Outpost what it is, it is the volume and density of actuarial and related representation that does. For example, see Fark.com, one of the world's best-known websites. There is no mention of specific posters other than the founder, who is also the current administrator; the same applies to Something Awful Forums. You are missing the point, Skippy, it is the community as a whole, not any individual poster, so nobody deserves to be singled out unless that person is notable in and of themselevs by Wikipedia™ standards. We have no one like that yet. Maybe if one of the prolific posters became the chairman of the SOA or the CAS, or a notorious ax-murderer; anyone who merits a Wiki article could get individual mention. Imaginary psuedonyms of otherwise non-notable people desrve nothing according to wiki standards. -- Avi 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First, my name is Skip, not "Skippy." Your attempts to belittle me are rude and inappropriate in this discussion. It appears you and your allies are trying to set the content on this page the way you want be driving away all dissenting opinions. Second, do you believe that Traci, Glenn, and Tom merit their own wiki articles? If not, then by your logic they should not be included in the article. However, if they do deserve a mention, than so do other members of the community. SkipSmith 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, Skip, sorry about the assumption of the diminutive ending. Now, did you look at those references? The founder and admin are important in relation to an Internet community; no other poster is solely because of their membership in that commnity. -- Avi 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: How do you know 2pac, 11p, and or abducens are not axe murders and/or the president of the CAS/SOA? :) Don Keynoteme 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility and Attacks

Could I please remind everyone to try and be civil and refrain from making personal attacks? Thanks. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /01:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. On a related note, gathering and posting the IP addresses of those who are participating in this discussion for the purposes of harassment is clearly out of bounds. SkipSmith 05:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Demon, the troublemakers who originally defaced the Wikipedia entry are just having fun at the expense of others. Personal attacks are all they know. See the anger and hate in the section immediately below this one. TheActuary 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you find anger and hate in everything? Perhaps this is a reflection of what you feel, since it is not a reflection of my feelings. I am praising the original Avraham and asking that we all try to model ourselves after one known for "generosity, humility, and readiness to forgive." I did not ever delete any of Avi's content in this article. I did not delete anyone's name. I did originally delete what I considered to be a superfluous vanity link to a blogspot. I appologize that this offended you so. Your vanity link is still there. In a spirit of generosity and forgiveness, I will cease from commenting about the AO on wikipedia. I would ask that perhaps you consider this a mutual non-aggression pact. I only attempted to add content about a spin off site. I really don't understand why this is so offensive to you. I have neither the time nor inclination to continue these petty battles with you. I will let the wikipedians decide what is best for their site as I have found this process distasteful and unpleasant, and will no longer be a party to it. Good day. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm saddened to see that participants in this discussion are being intimidated and pushed out of the wikipedia community. Joe accidentally signed an edit with his IP address, and other participants in this discussion looked up his place of work and threatened to contact his employer if he made any further edits. This may explain his sudden desire to drop out of the discussion. SkipSmith 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The spirit of the rebelactuary

Is the same spirit that founded the Actuarial Outpost, a spirit no longer found there. Free expression without fear of retribution. The ability to be a gadfly without generating complaints.

There once was an Avraham who was known as a gadfly.

"An argument could be made that this type of mindset, whereby an individual fearlessly confronts those wielding immense political power and challenges their behavior and leadership qualities on ethical, moral and spiritual grounds, is very much a fundamental aspect of Avraham’s activities throughout his life. Avraham’s unceasing willingness and increasing boldness to “speak truth to power” appears to evolve from confrontation to confrontation. "Avraham does not immediately engage in confrontation. The first time that he has to decide what to do in the presence of a powerful ruler, when a famine forces him and his family to leave Canaan, and go to Egypt (12:10 ff.), Avraham attempts to remain “under the radar.” He is afraid of what will happen to him were it to become known that Sara is his wife, and so the couple decides to pass themselves off as brother and sister. Even after Pharoah concludes as a result of God’s protecting Sara’s virtue by means of supernatural plagues (12:17), that they were in fact married, and proceeds to remonstrate Avraham for his deception, the latter is mute and leaves the country as soon as he is able. [Avraham] pleads with HaShem to spare the residents of [Sodom and Amora], however evil the majority of them may be…. "Avraham is …designated as possessing the qualities of generosity, humility, and readiness to forgive. Shabbat Shalom and let us all try to influence ourselves, our families, our communities and our people to aspire to the agenda that Avraham modeled so profoundly for us all."

http://www.kmsynagogue.org/VaYera.html

I aspire to such an agenda, however imperfectly or misguided those who judge me feel I may be. I applaud those who feel they have a mission to fearlessly confront those wielding immense political power and challenge their behavior and leadership qualities on ethical, moral and spiritual grounds. But those in power wish to bannish such challenging voices and many will rejoice if they succeed.Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Afd controversy archive

With the closing of the Afd, I have archived the discussions here: Talk:Actuarial Outpost/Archive 1 -- Avi 13:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed "weasel wording"

I have removed the "may well be…" wording from the article; it sounded more like an advertisement. -- Avi 13:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

References?

There's a note up that says we still need some references. Should we include the 30 page fax about this article that Glenn sent out recently? SkipSmith 08:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you are being vituperative, Skip. Let's not mention your posting of your opinion as to the anonymous moderators in-community handles, which may actually have violated Wikipedia's policy against persnal attacks and personal information, and definitaly violated the Outpost's policy against such. -- Avi 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not being vituperative (I'm not the one who sent a 30 page fax to someone's employer about this wiki entry). Second, we're not at the Outpost, so those rules don't apply here. The moderators of the board are important --- I'm sure you'd agree they're more important than the prominent members of the AO I was pushing for earlier. That was my attempt at a compromise position between just mentioning a few people and casting a broader net to include more members of the community, not a personal attack. SkipSmith 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Skip, stop playing games, please. The rules about personal information do apply, and unless someone is a public figure, like the President of the US, we try and protect anonymity where requested. Secondly, what you, glenn, and your employer do in your own time is your own business, not Wikipedia's. Lastly, no one person deserves mention in this article other than the founders and current admin. I brought plenty of examples in other wiki entries to bolster this. Trying to embarass people or get non-notable people, places, or websites mentioned is a violation of wiki rules. -- Avi 19:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't mention anyone's personal information here or anywhere else, just the pseudonyms of some editors on the AO. I'm not sure what wikipedia rule that violates. Second, I'm sure wikipedia would be dismayed at the attempts of some people to squelch this discussion, even if all of the really shady things are happening elsewhere. Finally, a disagreement about content is not a "violation of wiki rules" --- you're just trying to indimidate me into agreeing with you. SkipSmith 20:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Violating Wikipedia's terms of service again, SkipSmith. Have some respect for yourself and others.TheActuary 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you have comepletely erased my previous comment. Ironically, while you claim that I have somehow violated wikipedia policy (not "terms of service"), blanking out contributions is an actual violation of wiki policy. If you believe I am violating wiki policy, by all means report me. In the meantime, please restore the page to its previous incarnation, and add any comment to my comment that you wish. On a more general note, I'm very disappointed in the petty harassment, incivility, personal attacks, and now minor vandalism undertaken by those who disagree with my point of view. SkipSmith 06:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mods and Personal Information

I'll pose my question again. I'm willing to concede that perhaps major figures on the board who were not involved in the actual running of the board (such as Abducens and 2Pac) should not be mentioned. However, what are people's opinions on mentioning prominent moderators such as Mulan and others? SkipSmith 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any proof as to whom the moderators are, Skip? Last I checked they were anonymous, and by nature, someone who is a) anonymous and b) whom you are unsure of is not notable. The only way you can be truly sure of a mod identity is if either you are one yourself, which I doubt, or you have broken the rules of the AO.

Please be honest with yourself, you are using this vehicle to try and attack people on the AO by posting your suppositions as to mod identity in a place that you are ostensibly free from the AO rules. That strikes be as petty, vituperative, and somewhat childish. By the way, you asked me via PM on the board not to discuss your identity with anyone. Your actions here demonstrate your revocation of that request, as you no longer wish to be bound by the courtesy rules of the AO, so I am free to forward to Tom all of your PM's, am I understanding you correctly? -- Avi 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read these two sections on wikipedia policy before going down that road:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attacks#Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks

Let's keep it civil, please. SkipSmith 05:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm being very civil, Skip, and I follow wiki protocol. Firstly I ran your actions by a member of the arbitration committee [1]. I think the question was phrased remarkably civilly, knowing that had this happened on the AO you would have been banned. His response was that while the “outing” of real names is a blocking offense, he is not sure about the outing of board user handles [2]. Thus, I have not reverted your posting of the names above. However, you do realize that you have violated the rules of the AO by doing so, and thus why should you be afforded any special courtesy on the AO?

Further, let me quote to you from one of the links you so kindly posted, Skip:

Just like the attacks defined above, personal attacks on other editors on off-Wikipedia venues reflect badly on the attacker and are unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. Wikipedia acknowledges that it is a bad idea to try to regulate modes of behavior in fora not officially under the purview of the Wikimedia foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may make it difficult for people to assume good faith in your on-wiki actions. If you are considering posting a personal attack or something defamatory off-Wikipedia, please consider a more constructive approach for the benefit of the entire community.

I am doing nothing of the sort. All I may do is bring to the attention of the administrator of the board some informatin that I have about someone in clear violation of board policy—nothing to do with Wikipedia. Unlike your posts above, I will not even post anything where the public can see it. I am merely trying to uphold the regulations of the community that I have voluntarily chosen to be a part of. Your posting of board handles here, while perhaps not wiki-illegal, definitely is in the spirit of a personal attack. Remember, I have saved on my workcomputer a post from over a year ago which you, or one of those few who identify with your mission to out moderator id's, posted in the "Make suggestions" thread with the same names and mod id's.

Just to make sure, let us go through the examples you posted, and see to which ones you were possibly referring:

* Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.

Nope, no repeated statements of the sort. I don't think I exhibited any venom; perhaps exasperation, but no venom, and as for good faith, I think it is obvious.

* Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

Nope, nothing there either.

* Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)

Can you point one out, please?

* Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

Drawing a blank here.

* Profanity directed against another contributor.

Me, profanity? Please, you know my posting habits better than that, Skip.

* Threats of legal action.

No legal action; I don't even know your real name. Just passing on some information to the administrator of a board. According to you, I'd be within my rights to post your various handles on this talk page, as you have done above, but I feel that the fact that what you did was wrong is not sufficient for me to do the same wrong thing. I know that even if I would need to be reported to mods, I'd prefer it done privately than on some public web page such as this one.

* Threats of violence, including death threats.

Do you feel exposed to the threat of violence?

* Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.

May I point out the “outing” mod id's may actually be a violation of the above, Skip? It is somewhat ironic that you bring this up in light of your posts about the mods above.

* Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion. Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack.

Once again, I believe this is irrelevant.

So, if I may ask, why did you post the above links, especially in light of your possible violation? I fail to see its relevance to my statements.

Regardless, I stand by my statement that anonymous moderators, whose identity's are only subject to speculation and not fact, can not by nature be notable and as such, bear no mention in the article. Thank you. -- Avi 05:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion you would absolutely be justified in posting any anonymous board handles that I use here at wikipedia or elsewhere, provided no personal information was included. What crosses the line are the threats of retaliation myself and others have been subjected to for our opinions on this article, such as the 30 page fax that Glenn sent to someone's employer or your threats to forward personal identifying information to board administrators. That fax at least is an off-wiki personal attack. SkipSmith 08:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

/shakes head. Skip, my patience is getting a bit strained. Firstly, I agree with you that no actions should be taken against anyone through their employer, and if, and I repeat if, Glenn sent a 30 page fax to your employer, that is unconciounable—regardless of how annoying your actions may be. Secondly, you know very well that I do not know who you ae in RL, so making unfounded accusations such as "personal information to board administrators" is, to put it mildly, rediculous. You have nothing more to fear than Mulan does.

On the other hand, JMO's real name is used in JMO's sig, so I believe you are guilty of violating WP:HA and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attacks#Examples . However, unlike yourself, I will take no unilateral actions, but bring it up with the wiki authorities and let them decide. -- Avi 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like JMO is actually quite comfortable with people knowing he used to be a moderator, so maybe this isn't such a big deal:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=1466015&postcount=47

SkipSmith 07:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If JMO isn't a moderator anymore, then even if we had non-anonymous moderations she is ipso facto not notable. -- Avi 14:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Check Glenn's blog where he admits to sending out a 33 page fax to someone's employer regarding this wiki article (entry of May 22). I was actually unaware that JMO had his personal information attached to his profile --- however, if he is using his personal information in his signature, isn't it fair to assume he's not very interested in hiding it? Nevertheless, we could institute a rule of not mentioning moderators who have personal identification in their AO profiles --- maybe just mention a few such as Mulan as examples of the people doing the hard work to make the AO what it is today. SkipSmith 18:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Skip, no moderators are notable. Especially as they are suposed to be anonymous. None merit any mention. -- Avi 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to concede that no moderators be mentioned. SkipSmith 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/c/t/Talk%7EActuarial_Outpost_Archive_1_0024.html"

Category: Talk archives