Whither William: To wither or to write?

One thing I'd suggest, too, is that when the temptation strikes to answer EVERY comment with a comeback, resist it. Let readers' comments stand unmolested.

If he feels the need to defend or justify himself against unfair comments, wait a day or two or three, and see if one of the other commenters defends him. If none does, take it as a sign either that his action was indefensible, or that sometimes you just have to shrug off critical comment and move on.

Regardless, recognize that the POST is his domain, and the COMMENTS should belong to the readers.

I couldn't possibly agree less. Just for one thing, he's not a good writer or thinker. The world is not impoverished if he never blogs again.

Also, I take strong exception to "William didn't really do anything that isn't somewhat overlapping with or mirrored by things regular bloggers do all the time." As Marx pointed out, a big enough difference in quantity becomes a difference in quality. William called me a useless putrid twat. Sure, that "overlaps" with more trivial insults, but it's also in a league of its own. I don't think blogging needs guys who blurt out things like that. I think guys who are capable of blurting out things like that should just be quiet.

Ophelia, you have a very valid point.

I think "William" should be prosecuted for slander, libel and being an asshole extraordinaire.

The boy has a brilliant future as a Discovery Institute blogger, that's for sure. Maybe Glen Beck can use a new blogger - William sure has the integrity and honor for that. Seriously, one more pathetic liar needs to spew his shite online? I'll pass. I never bought the story for a minute and never interacted with him in his MPD selves, so I have no hat except a dislike of lyings sacks of suet.

Well, I once went to a friendly site (Pharyngula) to solicit help from the Pharyngulites for my comments section. What had happened was that in reply to a couple month old, long dormant guest post I had had from a scientist who visited the creation museum, a theist who I initially mistook to be a physicist from his e-mail address (it turned out he worked for a physics department as a computer programmer) had offered a scathing and frustrated critique of the Creation Museum. He attributed a bunch of outlandish theories to the museum which were new to me (and I had followed the Myers and SSA trip to the "museum" extremely closely live blogging the whole thing and recapping all the photos from the day, and covering all sorts of follow up blog posts from the trip. So, I thought this new information sounded bloggable and gave his comment its own post, only to have Mark Looy, the COO of the "museum" pop up, claiming that Paul completely fabricated his claims the museum. So, not having been there myself and being accused of running with bogus information, I solicited the Pharyngulites' help figuring that some of them might know more about the museum than I did.

And I've thought a lot about this in light of the Tom Johnson revelations at Intersection because ultimately after Paul attempted to substantiate his claims, I sided with him and was dressed down by Looy for it, and still didn't know what to make of it all.

All this chaos happened on a day in which I was teaching at two different universities in two different states (you know, my performing my actual jobs. It was very embarrassing and frustrating. I didn't want to give a shameless falsehood peddler like Looy a minor victory. I had no idea whether or not he was just ignorant of some of hypotheses his museum was just throwing out there. Yet, I also felt like I probably should not have elevated randomly offered testimony to its own post just because I saw its author had a connection to a physics department.

So, I can see where things can spiral out of a blogger's hands, especially when the blogger is writing part-time and balancing all sorts of other responsibilities and relying on the good faith of his commentators. I also know how tempting it would be to go create some sock puppets.

But I also don't think that soliciting aid is the same thing as pretending you have it and creating false supporters. I got the Pharyngulites to come over and help out out of hope they could actually help resolve the truth of the matter (even though I certainly was hoping that the truth they'd uncover vindicated my commentator). While I empathize with Mooney and Kirschenbaum a bit for how they got played (even though now with 20/20 vision William's puppet shows look painfully obvious and even though at the time William caused such a torrent of activity and wild accusations that it should have drawn at least some notice that something odd was afoot in general), I don't see how I should empathize with William for putting on the sock puppets just because I too once ran desperately for help when I got in a jam that was partially due to my own sloppy newbie blogging skills.

I just don't think they're equivalent. In fact, I'm even more offended as a blogger. I don't see what he did as on a scale with what the rest of us do. I see what he did as exploiting techniques we don't use to get an apparent advantage on us. I used to be really baffled and frustrated at how he had such a committed set of commentators who would have long discussions with each other after just two months. I have always been lucky to have wonderful commentators who trickle in a comment on most posts but I've had relatively few long engaged debates in my comments section which can draw in more and more commentators.

So, no, I wouldn't say that what he did was "not so bad" or just on a scale with normal blogging behavior. What he did was cheat in ways that crossed lines that responsible bloggers forbid themselves to cross. Some may forgive him, as I initially was inclined to do before I learned more, but it would have to be forgiveness in spite of inexcusability rather than out of understanding.

William not only used sockpuppets, but he also set up straw men speaking in mined quotes. And he became defensive when people disagreed with him. And he tenaciously pursued his points even when those points became dull. And he encouraged tribalism on his comment threads. And he was never clear about who he was.

Sounds like pretty run of the mill blogging, to me.

And you still feel "everyone should blog"?

[Insert long stream of random emoticons here]

William called me a useless putrid twat. Sure, that "overlaps" with more trivial insults, but it's also in a league of its own. I don't think blogging needs guys who blurt out things like that. I think guys who are capable of blurting out things like that should just be quiet.

It was seeing that remark from the sock puppet "Julie" which helped solidify my judgment he should never blog again.

Really, the more I actually read through what the sock puppets were up to at YNH and Intersection the further I am convinced he does not have anything useful to offer after all.

On the talk.origins newsgroup there was this nasty troll creationist whose moniker was "jistaskin" (or some spelling variation thereof." He never read the FAQ's, he called "evolutionists" names, made fun of St. Charles, didn't respond well to challenges and was an all-around jerk. I don't think that anyone ever really discovered who he really was.

"William" has been more than just a sockpuppeteer, Greg, he has been a real jerk. And I don't mean in the insult comic dog "Loki" way that punctures ego balloons. I mean a real nasty because he can hide behind anonymity sort of way. His a apologies and mea culpas ring hollow and I don't think he is yet sincerely sorry.

I don't have any personal grievances regarding anything his puppets wrote about me. They were nothing and only accusations that I am Greg's sockpuppet. I don't like the way that he wrote about people I admire, including you but especially Ophelia; that was some nasty sexist bullshit that shouldn't be forgiven on her behalf because it belies an undercurrent of disrespect for females.

If he blogs, I won't read it. I don't care for the twit. He is the equivalent of "jisstaskin" only he used a blog.

@ Greg -

Have yet to thank you for your consistently high tone and well reasoned commentary about "Tom Johnson" which you have posted here and over at The Intersection. These have been some of your finest comments.

However, having said this, I don't know whether "Tom" or "William" or whomever he really is ought to be blogging again. For a variety of reasons, I'm not sure whether blogging is an ideal mode of communication. I have several friends who are journalists and writers, and none have had time to devote themselves to blogging (In my own instance I am busy trying to finish revising an unpublished ms., so that's more an incentive for me to remain off various websites. However, as I am sure you noted, I have felt compelled to comment about the "Tom Johnson" affair both here and over at The Intersection.).

Sincerely,

John

If what "Willliam"/Tom/bilbo/Milton C./Petra/Julie/et al. did was like run of the mill blogging, the web should be burned to the ground, and the ground should be thoroughly salted.

What that person did was rampant libel, and utterly dishonest, despicable evasive tag teaming. He very systematically and thoroughly violated trusts in any way he could to make his targets look as bad as possible, truth be damned, and to make their participation as unpleasant as possible. He systematically abused and harrassed so that people would give up and he could win by default, because better people were unwilling to stoop to his level to counter his tactics.

I assume you're kinda joking when you say that's like run of the mill blogging, and you're making a point that many people do things that are in some way sorta like that. That is true, and it is interesting.

But seriously, "sorta like that" is also very, very different.

When Stephanie Z. has your back, for example, I may not like it, and may think there's some knee-jerk defensiveness going on sometimes. But at least I can see that, and say so, if that's what I think. That has to be allowed, as does criticizing it.

If, on the other hand, Stephanie Z. turned out to be your left sock, I'd be howling for your head, and saying that if there's not a rule, there damned well ought to be a rule against that, and the consequences of violating it should be severe.

In particular, there ought to be a rule on Science Blogs that science bloggers never sock puppet. (Except of course in the jokey obvious way, which isn't real sock puppetry.) Any blogger who does it should not be allowed to blog here anymore, IMHO.

I (obviously) have a problem with some of the things you've been saying lately, which seem pretty close to saying that any criticism of bloggers violating norms is out of line, because all such "violations" are ex post facto, because currently there are no rules.

There's a valid point in there, but it's not helping.

Oughtn't there be some rules or norms? Shouldn't we be discussing what those norms ought to be, so that next time somebody violates them, we can say they were warned, rather than any asshole being able to dismiss any criticism as ex post facto? (And especially so that people can be criticized fairly for violating norms, rather than opportunistically when it's "them" doing it, and not "us"?)

I think that could be an interesting discussion. Without that kind of discussion, though, talking about how everybody does stuff like that and there are no rules sounds like you're doing exactly what you said we should not do---letting "William" off the hook, more or less, by downplaying the severity of his offenses.

I assume that is not really what you mean to do, but it'd really help if you were clearer about what you do and don't really mean, and how you think it's helping to say this sort of stuff.

And if there are no rules or norms about this sort of thing, such that serious consequences are in order, are there likewise no rules or norms about outing anonymous posters?

If not, I say out the fucker, by his full name, university department, etc. Why the fuck not?

I'm not really saying that should be done. I don't know what I'd do in Chris's position. Outing somebody is very, very serious in my book, but OTOH so is a cold-blooded systematic months-long campaign to libel people.

(And yes, I do think that much of what "William" has confessed to doing is libel. It might not be actioinable, or you might not be able to win a suit because of difficulties proving tangible damages, but it's fucking well libel nonetheless. He quite knowingly and calculatedly misrepresented what people said and what it meant in order to falsely make them look bad---he did it to me numerous times, and many others as well.

At this point, I'd be happy to see the guy outed and his career prospects wrecked. If he's old enough and advanced enough to be "a scientist," he's old enough to know better and prospective employers ought to be warned. And if he's "very young" as Chris says, well, fine, it's not too late for him to find another line of work.

I say that partly because I do not believe his contrition. He's pulled that shit before, too, getting caught trying to out somebody else in a way that Chris objected to, feigning remorse, promising never to do that sort of thing, and proceeding to be the coldest, most calculating and dedicated systematic libel scammer you ever saw. For no particular reason except that he's profoundly cruel.

I know a lot of people on the intertubes are somewhat dishonest, and sometimes intentionally misrepresent their opponents somewhat to score cheap points. So what? This guy did it a whole lot to a whole lot of people and he got caught. That's enough to justify throwing the book at him.

He's not just a shameless asshole, who called Ophelia a useless putrid twat. That's terrible, but that's just run off the mill assholery of the type that's easy to spot and call out. And he's not just a hypocrite, who constantly tone trolled his opponents and interleaved that with far worse assholery than theirs. That's terrible, too, but doing it with sock puppets is a whole other thing. Non-sock hypocrisy is one thing---you can see it and call out.

Tag-teaming to conceal that rampant hypocrisy is much worse, and doing it so pervasively and calculatedly for so long is really special; the difference in quantity really does amount to a difference in quality, as does the aggravating factor of feigning remorse and do it again.

Given that this guy used sock puppets to try to out someone else for doing far less offensive things, then feigned remorse and kept doing those worse things himself, vhe's the very last person I can think of that we should be showing mercy to. Outing people is very serious business, but I can't think of anybody who deserves it more richly.

If we forgive and forget this guy, who wouldn't we forgive and forget, and what message does that send?

Is it really fair to expect unsuspecting scientists to take this person on as a colleague? I don't think so. I think they should be warned that he is a pathological liar whose repentance is likely feigned.

I can't be sure of that, and I can believe the guy is miserable over this fiasco, but I have to suspect that's mostly misery over getting caught, not honest remorse. I doubt the guy has much of a conscience at all, and if he does, he made it impossible for us to tell that, by feigning remorse previously and proceeding to be as big an asshole as he could figure out how to be.

Maybe outing him is going too far, but I don't know what the alternatives are, except to let him go scot free, anonymity intact, free to systematically inflict misery on others in the future, somewhat more carefully. I really don't like that idea.

Greg's suggestion of some form of public service seems like a good one, but how would that really work, if he's anonymous? (I realize that Greg is sorta fantasizing, but it's thought provoking.) How would that send a signal that there are any lines you can't cross without some real, inescapable consequences?

Is there any middle ground between throwing the book at him and outing him, and letting him off scot free?

What makes anybody think that someone who cared so much for the appearance of winning this argument, and who has now lost it by so much more than s/he could have arguing straight, is getting off scot free?

And no, there are no rules that apply across all blogs, because all blogs are not one thing. A blog is only a platform for what the blogger does with it, and if they all ran the same, we wouldn't need or want nearly so many of them.

What makes anybody think that someone who cared so much for the appearance of winning this argument, and who has now lost it by so much more than s/he could have arguing straight, is getting off scot free?

Oh, sure, he lost his investment in his sock puppeting scheme, and will have to start over. That's not much of a punishment, IMHO.

It's kinda like saying that if somebody runs a Ponzi scheme that falls apart, and others lose big and he comes out with nothing, but debt-free, he's "been punished" by having wasted his time.

Now imagine that the person running the Ponzi scheme did so anonymously, was not outed, and is free to try again.

In that situation, I'd say the person got off scot free, though of course they suffered some disappointment, they didn't go to jail, didn't get fined, and didn't even get outed as a con artist.

Hmmm... it's kinda interesting that in the "real" world, outing somebody as a criminal doesn't mean that they didn't get off "scot free".

For example, if Bernie Madoff was simply revealed to be a con artist, but never prosecuted because of some technicality (maybe exclusionary rules), nobody would say he didn't get off "scot free"---that would be the prototypical case of getting off "scot free."

(We wouldn't generally have a chance to even apply the term if it was never revealed that people had done something wrong! If merely having offenses revealed itself counted as punishment, saying somebody got off "scot free" would be self-refuting.)

Things are different on the intertubes, where the stakes are so bizarre and pseudonymous reputation is often relatively highly valued, so there's a gray area there, but I think it's quite reasonable to say that it looks like "William" will get off scot free, if he's not even exposed by his real meatspace name.

By the same token, exposing him by real name would count as punishment---and not as getting off scot free---which it generally wouldn't in so-called "real" life. (IMHO)

Odd, that.

Well, according to him, I destroyed his blog. Destroying someone's blog can be counted as punishment.

I am not very comfortable, however, defining something as not enough or enough when it comes to punishing others. Does not feel right to me.

No, bringing in friends to kick butt on a topic - actual living breathing people who can think and type - is not any form of sock puppetry. It is what sock puppetry imitates.

George, yes and no. Normally, yes. But there is a third sort of activity, what might be called "fleshpuppets." At least one currently active commenter on this blog does this, and a while back we had a guy here doing this all the time.

This is where you call your buddy up (or more likely send an email) and say "log onto this URL and make a comment that says, roughly, this or that, and I'll buy you a beer next time I see you.

Fleshpuppets.

Greg:

George, yes and no. Normally, yes. But there is a third sort of activity, what might be called "fleshpuppets." At least one currently active commenter on this blog does this, and a while back we had a guy here doing this all the time.

Who?

That's the sort of thing that I think it's perfectly kosher to point out.

Mr. Sock is right!

Well, mostly. I guess it wouldn't be cool if you can connect a sock puppet up to a meatspace name. Sometimes its legit to post as a sock puppet, just to say something pseudonymously for the usual good reasons.

Hmmm... but then, sometimes people might have other evidence, e.g., from other blogs, that they could use to track things back to meatspace identities. That would suck in cases where people aren't seriously abusing pseudonymity, just mostly using it sometimes.

I guess I'd be inclined to warn people that abusive sock puppetry (or flesh puppetry) is not okay, and that such pseudonymity may not be preserved.

(And email suspected abusive individuals first, to get them to stop. After that I wouldn't worry too much about outing them as puppets, or inadvertently outing meatspace people.)

Do you privately warn people when you notice that sort of thing going on?

Funny you should be the one to ask, Mr. Sock! Perhaps it is you!!!!

But seriously, no, I'll make a case of it if I get sufficiently annoyed. Otherwise not worth the bother.

Funny you should be the one to ask, Mr. Sock! Perhaps it is you!!!!

Huh? That was Paul W. who actually asked the question.

Sloppy, Greg, very sloppy.

Tube-sock: Sock said "Who?" and Paul said "Good question".

N.,

Learn to read before you go correcting Greg Laden, dumbass.