Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Moulton (un)ban 1.1 Deconstructing "recruiting meatpuppets" 1.2 Arbitrary section break 1.3 Clarifying meatpuppetry edits and banned users 1.4 Why he was, and why he is, blocked 1.5 Not requesting an unblock 1.6 Conversation with Moulton 1.6.1 Comment from someone who was there 1.7 moar evidence of meatpuppetry 1.8 Sam Korn's review of the case 1.9 Why Moulton disdains WP principles 1.10 Comment 1.11 Call the question 1.12 "destroying a developing consensus" 1.13 User talk:Moulton 1.14 Well, time to archive 2 Moulton is asking to be unblocked 2.1 Login unification status 2.1.1 Home wiki

[edit] Moulton (un)ban

Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Given the recent dramaz relating to this user and the_undertow (see WP:RFAR#The_undertow), a fair bit of confusion has arisen as to if this user is actually banned or not.

Relevant links

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton
2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Moulton#Enough
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton
4. ArbCom appeal

Let's try and treat this the way we normally treat a ban/unban discussion and put aside the_undertow's antics for a bit. To get the ball rolling I promise we as a community unban (and subsequently, unblock) Moulton and allow him to resume editing. I say this because I see no significant discussion in the original ban discussion (ANI archive 297) and am willing to extend a second chance, over six months later.

But I'm not the community; we are. Comments, please. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's banned. Tagging notwithstanding, if there is someone willing to unblock, he's "blocked without consensus to unblock" not banned. I'm not prepared at this time to support an unblock, because I'm not completely sure that Moulton would edit constructively within our norms, based on his own communications with me, but I think there is merit in investigating the matter, especially the manner in which we got to where we are now. There may well be learnings here on how to deal with academics more effectively, in a way that doesn't sour them on wikipedia. Were I to get a positive committment from Moulton to edit within our norms that I felt was credible, I would support an unblock, with probation and monitoring, as we have done for other users. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a probation and a commitment from Moulton would be necessary. naerii - talk 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't see enough "disruptive" behaviour in the original discussions to support a ban on Moulton. He's a bit of an oddball, yeah, but there was no consensus (unless a 'consensus' amongst a small group of editors counts) and I see no wider discussion. To be honest I've never really understood why he was indefinitely blocked in the first place, and would like to see him unblocked and given a chance to make helpful contributions. There is nothing to stop us reblocking if he does turn out to be disruptive, and I'm sure many eyes will be on his contributions should that happen. Moulton is obviously knowledgable on some topics and I think that if there's a chance that we could draw on that knowledge, we should take it :) naerii - talk 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the people who support a continued block lay out reasons as to why it is inadvisable. As is obvious, nobody wants to let a disruptive editor back on. Please try and avoid unnecessarily drama-causing statements such as "recruiting meatpuppets" as also content-free phrases such as "Civil POV-pusher." Reading the original statement at the RfC, I see that the statements that are reported as being disruptive are almost identical to those made by a dozen outside observers in the recent push towards consensus at Talk:Rosalind Picard. I'd like to see more specific complaints about misrepresentation of sources, or extensive POV-pushing. I'd also like to see MastCell comment on talkpage abuse, and Moreschi on what he saw as OR, since those are two editors that I generally agree with. I lean towards not thinking an unblock necessary at this time, but I'd like to see some actual reasons, not mad rushes to judgment. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Given Moulton's experience with Wikipedia, I would be pleasantly surprised if he decided to contribute after this. An unblocking would be a reasonable manner in which to begin to try and resolve Moulton's case (for want of a better word). I believe Moulton's blocking issues stemmed from his opposition to the labelling of scientists (particularly Rosalind Picard) as supporting Intelligent Design on their biographical articles. Neıl ☎ 11:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As one of the editors who interacted with Moulton and tried to meet his concerns, the evidence presented understates the tendentiousness of his talk page insistence on justifying his edit warring by rambling on about his own ideas of "standards" which are very much at odds with Wikipedia policies. There is also a question of whether he actually made any constructive edits, his emphasis was very much on removing properly sourced information on the basis of his own original research. He continues to campaign off-wiki for Wikipedia to be changed to accord with his ideas. Has there been any indication that he has changed? . . dave souza, talk 11:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As anyone whose spent as much time whacking fringers and POV-pushers as I have knows, "removing sourced information" is quite frequently a "constructive edit".

Campaigning off-wiki for changes to WP policy are also, IIRC, not considered inappropriate. Or are we going to ban Phil Sandifer for campaigning on the mailing list prior to trying to change policy on verifiability here? Or Doc Glasgow for doing the same at the Stalk Board?

If the central problem is that he goes on too much, a strict enforcement of WP:TALK should certainly be enough, IMO. I tend to be pretty strict on the subject, removing or blanking off-topic discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I look forward to your support should I find it necessary to apply it. I disagree with your enthusiasm for WR. .. dave souza, talk 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What enthusiasm? You really need to try sticking a little more closely to what people actually write. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As some may know, I've chatted a little to Moulton, and will be chatting with him again tomorrow in a public conversation over at WP:NTWW (all are welcome, and if you'd like to speak with Moulton at all, it's not a bad opportunity). I think it's fair to say (without prejudice) that Moulton is quite angry at how matters played out here, and would like some assurance or recognition that something went awry in his case - I still haven't figured out quite what went on, despite having ploughed through an awful lot of material - it's very very muddy waters from my perspective. I personally would be happy for Moulton to be unblocked - particularly given the obvious level of scrutiny any and all edits would face - he's neither an 'under the radar' kind of guy, nor an irredeemable wiki-editor in my view. Privatemusings (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton was banned because he was trying to whitewash away some embarrassing facts about his colleague of his - Rosalind Picard - from her article. It took months of tedious work on the part of several knowledge editors in this area to debunk his claims (that the NY Times are not a reliable source, that they didn't really mean to include her, etc), and he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong. His contributions were not beneficial in any way - he was an SPA whose contribution was to simply waste everyone's time. And he was community banned for it. Now people who did absolutely nothing to deal with the problems he caused the last time around are proposing we forget all of the above, and pretend like he was a useful contributor, or had the potential to be. He was no such thing. Raul654 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree I did nothing to deal with "the problem" when it took place—I wasn't aware of it at the time and am not pretending I was. But that doesn't answer the question being asked—is Moulton banned? And if not, why not give him a second chance? Admittedly, most of his work was done on the Picard article and in relation to other ID related issues, but he also made useful contributions to (to take a random example) Characterization. More of this, less of the undiscussed "whitewashing", and we have a good contributor. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul, please back up your assertions with arguments, as I requested. Diffs about "whitewashing" that are substantively different from arguments independently made recently by those who have absolutely no connection with either Moulton, Rosemary Picard, or ID-pushers would be a start. Nobody is going to unblock the fellow without taking your concerns into consideration, but surely you need to demonstrate their weight first. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be asking me to provide a "substantially different" set of problem behaviors Moulton was banned for then was previously discussed on the Rosalind Picard talk page. That simply is a non-starter. He was banned for the reasons he was banned -- that he tried to whitewash the article. This is documented in excruiating detail on his RFC. Edits like this (linked from that RFC) are par for the course -- notice the hagiographic tone, the fact that he has completely removed any mention of the fact that she signed the petition (a total whitewash, as it were). Raul654 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul: When I compare the Picard article as it was then to the way it is now, I see a previous article that was a WP:COATRACK, because it gave undue weight to one episode in this person's life. That the event was properly sourced is not disputed by me. What is disputed by me is the slant the article had. It was at the time, in my view, a clear WP:BLP violation, and badly needed correction. Moulton went about it all wrong. But guess what? So do a lot of other people. See WP:DOLT for some tangential but related thinking on dealing with newbies that have issues. See also some essays on how the academic model of discourse may not be completely compatible here. In my view, Moulton's old approach wasn't going to work here. But if there is reason to believe he now realises that, and wants to change his approach, I'd support an unblock. At the present time, I don't see that. But a blocked editor that we are willing to unblock under conditions is not a banned editor. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just had another round of communication with Moulton and I see no change in his position, which is (paraprhased and any inaccuracy introduced is mine) that he does not wish to edit here without a review of what occurred having happened first (in particular, he wishes that these concerns be addressed). I'm not sure that's going to happen. Therefore, I see no pressing need to lift the block at this time, but I however continue to state that he is not banned. There are conditions under which I, an administrator in good standing, would lift the block, therefore there is not unanimous consent for a ban, and therefore this user is not banned, merely indefinitely blocked. I have changed the template used on his user page to reflect that. It is a distinction with no practical effect on his ability to edit, but a distinction that matters nonetheless. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As the original blocking admin, I am involved, but would like to state (possibly pointlessly) that Lar is correct: under these conditions "indef blocked" not "banned" is the accurate term. That said, I don't know anyone who hasn't accidentally used the wrong term once or twice, whether "block" when they meant "ban" or similar errors, and it would be nice if everyone overlooked any mis-statements or disagreements about terminology and avoided nasty accusations and ABF. It doesn't help the situation a bit and only introduces bickering about non-issues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What ban? there was no ban - FM just randomly decided he was the community and added the template on his on initiative - but the template does not make it so. Viridae^Talk 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

H₂O, would you be willing to "keep an eye" on Moultan for a while if you unblock him? Your answer to this question is the same as mine to whether I'd support your unblocking him. WilyD 12:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am if he isn't. Or jointly, because I suspect I already know Giggy's answer will be yes. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-admin idiot who changed his mind about Moulton during the RfC, I wonder if the Arbcom decision not to hear an appeal of his ban (and it's worth reading the arbitrator's opinions) has any bearing on whether or not he should be considered banned.

I also wonder why we are having this debate now (other than the_undertow's actions). Is there any evidence that Moulton realises that anything he did was wrong, and if so, where is it? I just can't reconcile the view that he's going to contribute constructively with the view that Wikipedia is responsible for turning a respectable academic into a... never mind. Let's just say that, if the WR posts I've read are anything to go by, he's quite sure that any fault lay on the part of Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I suspect it goes without saying, I would also find this sufficient. WilyD 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• In these more enlightened times, I'm pretty sure we can link to WR where relevant - Moulton's version of how he came to be blocked is here, which I think is relevant. If fifty percent of what he says is accurate, his block was unfair. Neıl ☎ 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Banning policy, if no uninvolved admin is willing to overturn the block, he's banned. Maybe the undertow is in fact involved, but if another were to agree with his rationale and call for a review or unblock, would he not be de facto unbanned? Wizardman 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we're ignoring that it has been raised on Rfar, and we are currently waiting to see if ArbCom will clarify, whether their declining to hear his appeal changed the status of his case at all; it may be that changed his status from indef blocked to banned. It may be that it changed nothing, in which case as Wizardman notes the undertow is arguably involved, and is not the requisite "uninvolved admin". If a completely uninvolved admin were to state his/her willingness to unblock, then I agree, he would be de facto not banned - but he would still be indef blocked, with no consensus to unblock, as noted by Lar near the beginning of this thread. All that said, FM was justified in stating he was banned per the evidence available - no uninvolved admin was willing to unblock - and I find Viridae's attack on FM sadly divisive to no purpose. Viridae, I suggest you strike that accusation.

As Moulton is either indef blocked with no consensus to unblock, or banned, what is the best course forward? I concur with SheffieldSteel, nothing has changed regarding Moulton except that the undertow unblocked him, without, I might add, even bothering to post such a potentially disruptive unblock on AN/I, which is done for even fairly minor changes of block duration, let alone for unblocking indef blocked editors. This is insufficient rationale for unblocking - that a rogue, possibly involved, admin unblocked without community input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong in one point, and with it crumbles much of your statement. An admin deciding that they are willing to unblock does not make them stop being uninvolved. If they were uninvolved before they made that decision, they remain uninvolved after it. I have seen zero evidence presented that the undertow is an involved admin; the lack of such evidence is significant given that almost every other smear under the sun is being thrown at him. With no evidence for the undertow being involved prior to the unblock; he is and remains an uninvolved admin for the purpose of considering Moulton. So it is clear, solely from his action, that Moulton is not now banned. (It is debatable if Moulton was ever banned; I haven't yet concluded on that.) GRBerry 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you were at all accurate about my reasoning, you would be accurate, but as you are "clearly" stating my reason is that he's willing to unblock makes him "involved" and you're dead wrong about that, your whole statement is pointless. Feel free to ask any questions about my reasoning, rather than leap to such conclusion in the future. It wastes everyone's time to read such fantasizing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would perhaps say that if you were involved at the time, or now, it was not because of the block itself but rather because of previous history, if any, in editing in the somewhat contentious ID related area, which was a focus of some of the article disputes that lead to the block as I understand it. There are those that assert you do edit in that area, is that a correct assertion? ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Lar? GRB and I are discussing whether the undertow is an involved or uninvolved editor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer Lar's question, which is relevant to the overall discussion but differentfrom this subthread, I think this diff is sufficient evidence that KC listed himself as an editor in the intelligent design area. He remains listed as a participant in that project. GRBerry 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nod. to KC (the first reply :) ): I would note that in my imperfect understanding, ArbCom declined to review the matter (with one possible outcome being an overturn of a community banning), that is, declined to review the actions OF the community. If there is no longer consensus for a community ban, that overrides ArbCom's decline to review it, in my view. Unblocking him is, in my view, not going against an ArbCom finding. (but I see no pressing need for an unblock, unless we are applying something akin to a "we don't think we did anything wrong but we are unblocking you anyway so you can go away in good grace" reasoning that has been used with other WR regulars, given what I said above that he's not likely to edit constructively, or at all, for that matter, at this time) To GRB: I agree, I don't see 'tow as involved the way that others such as Raul, Fill, FM, etc are. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the unblock of Moulton, and don't believe a community of six involved editors have the authority to ban someone. Powers were abused in this case, and I believe Moulton deserves a second chance, as he did make constructive edits. I'd also be willing to keep an eye on his contributions and be available to answer questions for him. Lara❤Love 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Powers were abused? Really? Whose? Mine, as the one who indef'd? If not, then who? Please either be specific or retract that very serious accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to unblocking. Strongly. And a community ban remains a ban by definition: Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban "Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" '". Moulton was not and remains not interested in collaboratively writing an encyclopedia, only in promoting a certain view on a single topic, consensus or NPOV be damned. The Arbcom recognized this when it rejected his request to be unblocked. As seen in his comments and efforts offsite, nothing has changed with Moulton, and he's simply unsuited to be editing Wikipedia, a fact the Arbcom recognized. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten that, so yes, he's banned. No amount of discussion changes that. However, my point about bickering about terminology still stands - and I'm pleased to see that FM at least is not accusing those debating this point of BF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, FeloniousMonk is misrepresenting what happend in that ArbComm appeal. Moulton asked the AbComm "to review the issues of due process that I am placing before the ArbCom" Wikipedia and the ArbComm doesn't do due process; so of course they rejected that request. The committee did not reject an appeal to be unblocked; the rejected a request for due process. As such, their decision there matters nought at all. GRBerry 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Further, a community ban requires consensus. Just as in the Mantammoreland case, in which a lack of consensus resulted in a reversal of a block, there is not demonstrated consensus for a community ban in this matter at this time. Certainly some are arguing for it, yes. And some are arguing against it. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think unblocking Moulton is a singularly bad idea. Aside from the actual edit warring at Picard's biography, and Tour's biography and at A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which was considerable, and threats and other assorted bad behavior on the talk pages, the most fundamental problem with User:Moulton was his belief that a large fraction of the traditions, conventions, rules and policies of Wikipedia must be changed immediately if not sooner, by fiat issued by him. He has never renounced this belief to my knowledge and in fact continues to lobby for this position off-wiki extensively.

A more extensive discussion of my position is found here--Filll (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about this a while, and reviewed more of the evidence than I had previously, I come to the following conclusions. 1) The original block and the RFC are quite problematic, because the articles he was accused of whitewashing or otherwise inappropriately editing were at the time egregious violations of our policies, most importantly WP:BLP, but also WP:NPOV. 2) The undertow's unblock was quite bold, but reasonable; in the original ANI thread announcing the block, the blocking admin said "Per usual, if anyone wishes to unblock feel free." As such, the unblock could reasonably be understood as having the explicit consent of the blocking admin, so no discussion prior to unblocking was needed. 3) There are conditions under which I would be willing to unblock Moulton. They are broadly similar to those Lar has described, namely editing within norms and being willing to work with our communal processes. 4) Moulton is not now a banned editor. (It is not worth concluding whether he ever was.) 5) I doubt that Moulton is currently willing to deal with the fact that this is encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but I could be wrong on this point. 6) It is unlikely that a consensus for an unsupervised unblock will emerge soon. 7) It would be best if his return was accompanied by supervision, but I expect the supervisors will have as much to do in educating those opposed to Moulton but in the wrong themselves as they will in educating Moulton. 8) If any admin receives any private indication of willingness to edit within norms, Moulton's talk page should be unprotected so he can make such statements publicly here. GRBerry 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent with 1. I disagree with 2 -- when you have someone who has been indefinitely blocked for a substantial period of time, an unblocking should always be preceded by discussion. The block belongs not only to the original admin, but also to all those who did not unblock immediately. While the "one admin willing to unblock" standard is good for creating bans, it should not be interpreted legalistically when it comes to judging whether they should continue. I think the undertow had a significant lapse in judgment here.

With 4 -- the difference between "indefinitely blocked with no immediate prospect of unblocking" and "indefinitey banned" is very small. I would say, personally, that it is pretty much meaningless. Is he banned? Well, he can't edit Wikipedia from that account. That's the actual reality, rather than the theory, which can be highly misleading.

The question that needs answering is not "is this block valid?" (I say "block" rather than "ban" solely to avoid legalistic disputation) but "is this block right?" I would be interested in hearing from him -- he can feel free to email me (smoddy@gmail.com). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I've been trying to say with my pleas to stop bickering about the terminology. Thanks, Sam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton was blocked because of his behaviour. There's no indication that he has any desire to change his behaviour. So why should he be unblocked?

Moulton's problem is with the core principles of Wikipedia - he appears to be unable to grasp the fact that he cannot substitute his own experience for a reliable source. It isn't all that strange a situation for a new editor. I'm sure most people have read a newspaper article and thought "they got that completely wrong. And many of us have, early in our Wikipedia career, changed an article, despite it being sourced, because we "knew better". It's a typical newbie mistake. But it's explained to us, we accept it as "the rules", and eventually, we come to embrace sourcing because we see how important it is to the accuracy of the project as a whole. Moulton never made it past the first step. As late as his RFC, he still expressed surprise when he was told that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought - that despite being told that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought for months repeatedly prior to his RFC.

Moutlon was blocked because he was unwilling to adhere to our core principles. If there was some indication that he recognised the problem and was willing to change, then an unban may be in order. But he has done no such thing. So why unban him? Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking him. I'm not sure whether or not his initial treatment was fair, but either way it's been long enough and he should get another chance. Everyking (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So what has changed?--Filll (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we should never consider anyone beyond redemption. We block people who are actively damaging the encyclopedia, to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia. If Moulton returns and edits within our communal norms, then he's no longer damaging the encyclopedia. If he repeats offensive behavior patterns, he can be blocked again. So where's the harm? FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I give notice here that I am willing to unblock Moulton, on the (standard) requirement that he edits within communal norms and policies. I will not do so immediately, in the interests of reducing Wikidrama, but will give time for those opposed to propose good reasons as to why this should not be done. FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that no one should be considered beyond redemption. However, this should be considered extremely carefully, given that someone who unblocks Moulton is most likely demanding the commitment of hundreds of wasted hours of other volunteer's time.

I also ask, are you in favor of discarding WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:COI and WP:RS ? Are you in favor of unleashing someone who has repeatedly stated and continues to state repeatedly and aggressively he will not abide by Wikipedia's core principles, and summarily rejects them in favor of his own dictates and fiats and fatwas? If you are in favor of these things, then unblock/unban Moulton. Because that is what you will get.

Until such time as Moulton renounces his current positions and shows some acknowledgement of the part his own positions and actions played in this saga, I fear this will be a collosal waste, and a price that the person who unblocks will be visiting upon the community.--Filll (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis states it rather well here. If he returns and is not disruptive, where's the problem? It's pretty much self-evident that Moulton was never banned but remains indefinitely blocked. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption to the project and right now, I'm not seeing him as being much of a risk. Having said that, I was not involved with this editor in the past, as many others here obviously are, so may not be aware of the entire history. If someone like User:Vintagekits can survive more than two indef blocks yet return rehabilitated, I daresay Moulton could too - Alison ^❤ 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the question of "why no?" I would direct people to MastCell's section below. He does not appear to have acknowledged that his blocking was in any way related to his behaviour, let alone resolved to change his behaviour. No one is beyond redemption, but there has to be, at the very least, a commitment to change. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deconstructing "recruiting meatpuppets"

What others seem to call "recruiting meatpuppets" actually follows a simple pattern - and one that involves no wrongdoing on anyone's part. Moulton says there is a problem with an article (he's allowed to have an opinion, and he's allowed to state his opinion, and this is as far as his actions go, full stop). Someone else, who is not banned and therefore who is free to edit articles, *gasp* _agrees_ that the article violates BLP or whatever, and makes an edit using their own judgement.

This is NOT meatpuppetry, this is not "proxy editing", this is nothing more than people fixing BLP issues with articles on people that for some reason a certain group of editors wants to smear as "anti-evolution". --Random832 (contribs) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Moulton calls for very specific edits to two specific articles: WikipediaReview, May 12, 2008 And here a new user, one who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose - Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets the very definition of a meatpuppet, making his first two and only edits in the article namespace matching Moulton's above requested content word-for-word within hours of Moulton's request: May 12, 2008May 12, 2008 And here's the new editor acknowledging he acted in response to Moulton's call: [1] An editor who is engaged in the same behavior as Moulton and in the same context, and who appears to be editing solely for that purpose is by defintion Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets meatpuppetry. I have 16 more links of Moulton directing others, calling for certain edits. Would you like to go through each one as above? FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. If someone "calls" for an edit to an article by proposing text (on a talk page, in a blog, at some other site that I happen to read, or by mailing to me or whatever form the communication takes), and I happen to think that, after reviewing the article, that the text is good, or close to good, and thus use it verbatim or with little modification, that does not mean I am that person's meat puppet. It means that I am happy to take constructive input about ways to improve articles where ever I may happen to find it, and I stand behind the edit I made, not the other person. That was pointed out to you (in rather less detail) on your talk page, in the very diff you cite as evidence of puppetry. I think you may have overstepped a bit in your use of terms here. For the record, I am always happy to receive suggestions about improvements to articles, which I will act on or not, as I choose, and I am no one's puppet. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this does NOT contradict my stated intention to blanket mass revert the edits of editors who are banned and "singularly unwelcome" here. Mass reverting allows for someone else to then come in and selectively choose to incorporate material and stand behind it themselves. If I saw a sock of Moulton editing here I could very well revert all the edits that sock made without any inconsistency. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar speaks very sensibly here. A good edit should never be considered "tainted" because of who supports it. Content can be considered strictly on its own merits, without regard to who is on which side. Friday (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Are you saying it's ok to recruit meatpuppets if some editors in good standing decide to adopt the advice as their own? . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he's saying making a reasonable edit after noticing a blocked editor had suggested it does not amount to "recruiting meatpuppets" in the first place. If I see a blocked user point out a BLP violation on Wikipedia Review or anywhere else, my first instinct is to check it out, and fix it. I don't care if a blocked user was the first to notice it. I wouldn't consider myself to then be a meatpuppet for that user. Just in case I wasn't clear earlier, I support unblocking Moulton, as the circumstances of his indef block (not a ban - a ban indicates consensus - for which there is none, based on the above) were dubious, and as there's no doubt his actions would be monitored by more than one admin, if he does end up broaching policies, he can always be reblocked. Neıl ☎ 15:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would direct anyone who agrees with this line of reasoning to consider the recently forged and hard-fought consensus at Rosalind Picard which was almost immediately discarded by a new editor who admitted he was following Moulton's off-wiki direction. Is this the kind of editing environment you advocate? Where consensus stands for nothing?--Filll (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not remotely. Coming in and disregarding existing consensus is disruptive. This is true regardless of whether he was following some instructions or not. Friday (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure what this has do to with the discussion, really. I'm also not sure Moulton saying "I do not agree with the content of this article" can fairly be characterised as "off-wiki direction". Neıl ☎ 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Friday and Neil, but I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the consensus. Are you sure that the lowering of the amount of coatracking this article contains is due to your personal efforts, or is it more likely that it was a consensus reached against your wishes, that is, that the article is in a state you do not personally agree with is the correct weighting in that it doesn't emphasise the petition enough? The article in my view, still could stand improvement, even now. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I was on that talk page trying to get some discussion rather than the insult flinging and hate spewing I saw. I got threatened for my efforts with some sort of "outing". Consensus should not be built via wikibullying those who disagree with you away. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, you were not threatened and that was a poorly stated post and a misunderstanding. I apologized before for any misunderstanding and I apologize again. That is off-topic in any case.--Filll (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. I will now disengage. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I would dispute some of the characterization of my position and editing as recounted above. But is this really the place for such a debate?--Filll (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

This will be a bit lengthy, but please bear with me. I'm going to speak carefully here, recognizing that Moulton is a real and identifiable person with a real career and real feelings. There are a couple of issues here:

• The legitimacy of his block/ban/what-have-you. Several editors have questioned this, some in more unfortunate and inflammatory language than others. The fact is that Moulton was indefinitely blocked after an RfC; his block was posted to WP:AN/I for comment; he appealed through numerous channels, from emailing various admins to unblock-en-l to Mike Godwin to ArbCom; and all of those lines of appeal were rejected. That was a legitimate and transparent block, according to Wikipedia's current standards - it was not unilateral, or unreviewed, or underhanded, or nefariously contrived by a handful of evil people, and anyone suggesting that it was is either ignorant of the facts or twisting this case to pursue a wider agenda (or both). The process of undoing such a block begins with discussion, not with a unilateral unblock, and I'd like to think that most admins have at least that much common sense. That said, there's clearly a feeling right now that this block needs to be reviewed again, so let's do it.
• My views were expressed here back in 12/07, and haven't changed much. When it comes to unblocking someone, the most useful question is: "Has anything changed since the block? Is there any reason to think that anything will be different?" I see nothing to suggest that it will. Virtually all of Moulton's attempts to get unblocked, here and on WR, are couched in terms of smiting people he believes have wronged him. Nowhere is any acknowledgement that his own actions or behavior might have played some role in the outcome of the situation, nor an indication of a desire to contribute useful content. These absences makes it much harder to believe that an unblock will prove constructive.
• I had no involvement in the whole Rosalind Picard thing; my take on the essential problem was that Moulton interacted largely in the form of abstract meta-diatribes. I hesitate to use the T-word, but I found his approach to be "trolling" in the pure sense - that is, editing with the primary goal of getting a rise or reaction out of other editors. It was a singularly unconstructive approach. Interestingly, my sense is that Wikipedia Review has been much more successful at handling Moulton's MO than we were. Many or most of his posts are simply ignored on WR, whereas Wikipedians, unfortunately, were unable to avoid engaging him on his terms with a resultant death spiral of argumentative silliness, to which Moulton was not the sole contributor.

I wish Moulton the best in general, but I'm against an unblock on practical terms - I see no benefit coming to the encyclopedia, particularly given that Moulton is still filing Petitions for Redress of Grievances which admit no responsibility, and has given no reason for us to expect anything other than a repetition of the same issues if he's unblocked. I'd like to see a separation between the fundamental question - whether an unblock will help the encyclopedia - and subsidiary issues like block vs. ban, grievances about the community ban process, etc. If the community consensus is to unblock, then I'd like to see specific guidelines in place on appropriate talk page use, along with one or more dedicated mentors to guide him on working within Wikipedia's policies and structures and review of his contributions at set periods to determine whether he should remain unblocked. I'm happy to go into more detail or discuss this further, but I think this post is long enough, so I'll leave it there for now. Incidentally, as the admin who protected Moulton's talk page, I'm going to unprotect it so that he can post directly there rather than having to email or post offsite to participate. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly, I would like to commend Dihydrogen for bringing this to the AN board for a review. I think we can all agree that this is the best manner to go about any controversial unblock. If we learned anything from Stifle's handling Iantresman case, its that these sort of things need to be explained in full view of the community, as he did. If the_undertow would have done this, a great deal of the drama would have been avoided. Since we can't live in the past, let’s look at the case. What this boils down to is should a user who exhausted the good faith of the large majority of editors he dealt with be allowed to return, as many have previously mentioned. We have to temper that with the knowledge that Moulton has actively attacked the entire membership of the WikiProject for intelligent design and additional editors that he feels are associated with the ID project. Of course, he is not the only person to attack this group on WR. He has also engaged in what could best be described as drive-by psychoanalysis of several of the members of the project. It was a little insulting, to say the least and I am sure the other members will agree, especially those who were on the receiving end of the doctoring. I guess you could say that I am involved with this because Moulton believes I am a sock puppet and/or a troll of some sort and has made his feelings public about this. He had also, during his very brief period, contributed nearly nothing of value to the project. So, basically we have some very respectable admins and editors asking for a good faith unblock for a user who has attacked other editors, showed no remorse for any of his actions, and appeared to be incapable of working within WP policies to construct an encyclopedia and would rather argue for his own ideas on policy. With Lar clearly stating that Moulton shows no change in his behavior, there is no way that this block can be overturned, without proper consensus. Also, someone previously mentioned how campaigning off-wiki is not always frowned upon. But we need to use common sense on this one. Are we seriously going to extend any good faith to a website that has entire sections devoted to vehemently attacking single editors? I am sure SlimVirgin and JzG would love to know that we think so highly of this sort of off-wiki canvassing, since they are some of the favorite targets. If there are editors wishing to mentor Moulton, as a few have mentioned they are willing to do, if Moulton agrees to stay away from articles in which he has a serious COI problem, and if he ceases his attacks on the editors who he has had previous dealings, the unblock could be considered. Short of these being addressed, I see no reason to overturn this block. Baegis (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Moulton hasn't done enough admitting that at least some of his problems are caused by his own improper behavior, and some of his views are mistaken or inappropriate. But the same can be said of some of those here who are fighting him; some of them still don't seem to admit that there was any problem whatsoever with the "coatrack" status of some of the versions of the articles in question. Perhaps some apologies and adoption of greater humility would be in order on more than one side. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully beg to differ. I was the editor who constructed the RfC. I was also the editor who volunteered to call Moulton and talk to him for several hours about his concerns about the biography and tried to help him resolve these problems, with repeated emails and phone calls to a variety of Wikipedians and others. I have never denied there was a problem with the biography on August 22, 2007; otherwise, why would I have devoted so much time and energy trying to fix it? There are reasons why it was in that state which I will not bore anyone with here. There are reasons it did not change to its current consensus state for a few months after, which I will not bore anyone with here. If you want a more complete explanation, contact me.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for instance, there's Raul654's comments way up on this page, "he never really did accept that he was flatly wrong". This exhibits a mindset of "he's totally wrong; we're totally right; we must never even think about un-banning him until he admits it and grovels before us." This excludes a position where both sides have made mistakes and have problems. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to defend the behavior and attitudes of everyone else. I can speak for myself and relate the positions of those who have shared those positions with me. I do not believe that everyone maintains that "he's totally wrong; we're totally right". It is not a matter of groveling. It is a matter of writing an encyclopedia according to our accepted principles. Do you favor discarding the five pillars? Do you favor unleashing people who have not demonstrated any evidence of being able to work with others on Wikipedia and follow the principles of Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not speak for others who engaged Moulton in discussions, it has been my observation that many others were unhappy with its status on August 22, 2007 for similar reasons to Moulton. However, again, there is a lot more to this story. And just pointing fingers without any knowledge of the background or the facts is not helpful. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• It appears the ball is now in Moulton's court. There were real BLP problems with that bio (since improved by the community), and he made mistakes common to overeager new editors. He had the door closed on him quickly, and several of the accusations made in the RfC were simply unfair. But as MastCell outlines, his willingness as a new user to understand and edit within all of Wikipedia's policies was wanting. We're not a justice system; in the end, "what's good for the encyclopedia" must win out; he needs to put aside his bitterness and acknowledge that he will live within the rules. - Merzbow (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To go back to Dan's point, I think there's some validity there, in that these sorts of disputes are rarely purely one-sided. Moulton's not crazy - he had some legitimate points (though his manner of addressing them was unproductive), and the ensuing fracas didn't bring out the best in any of its participants. The more all of us recognize that, the better, and I understand the appeal to basic fairness. Still, the immediate question, to me at least, is whether unblocking Moulton is going to help the goal of building the encyclopedia. Even if we accept that the actions of others warrant individual scrutiny, I don't see the answer being yes. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the request that I back my claim that tools were abused. These are the admins editors that formed the "community ban":

1. KillerChihuahua
2. MastCell
3. Moreschi
4. Baegis
5. SheffieldSteel
6. OrangeMarlin
7. Guettarda

Three are members of Wikiproject Intelligent Design, five participated in the RFC, which the result of was the basis for the block. The RFC was initiated by Filll. Among the certifying parties, FeloniousMonk was listed. The discussion was closed by WP:ID member KillerChihuahua, who had otherwise participated only in keeping order. The block was then carried out by involved FeloniousMonk. And then KC carried out the block. Lara❤Love 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with LaraLove here that the situation was handled in a less than ideal manner. I'd always rather see a neutral, uninvolved party enact "consensus", and I would have also liked to see greater participation from a wider array of editors before the actual block was ultimately enacted. hmwithτ 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was developed in a publicised RFC. The decision was posted to AN/I for consideration by the community. The decision was reviewed by the arbcomm. How do you suggest that one widen the array of editors involved? Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the WP:ANI discussion could have used more editors who did not have prominent roles in the RfC. hmwithτ 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How? We can't force people to participate. Generally, if something is uncontroversial and uncontested, people don't chime in. The question posed with a block review at AN/I is, in essence, "anyone have a problem with this block?" I'm pretty sure I've posted blocks before that got zero feedback on AN/I. I didn't take that as an indication that I should undo the block, and I don't think that anyone else would either. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just talking about this type of situation in general. I didn't even say that I objected to the actions of any editors. However, in ideally, things would certainly be different. However, I readily realize that an ideal situation is not always possible, as well. hmwithτ 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, no, those are not the admins who "formed the community ban". Those are editors who felt that a block was appropriate, following a public RfC. The block was then posted for review on WP:AN/I, the most public and widely-read forum on Wikipedia. It was reviewed via an {{unblock}} template, by the uninvolved admins at unblock-en-l, by the Foundation legal counsel, and by at least one admin whom Moulton contacted by email. The entire situation was then reviewed by ArbCom. After all of that exposure, which goes well beyond "6 admins", no one was willing to unblock Moulton. It is reasonable to equate that situation - a block which no admin is willing to undo - with a community ban, just as it's reasonable to consider Moulton unbanned since there are now admins willing to consider unblocking him. This whole line of argument - that the block lacked transparency or was not properly reviewed - is completely at odds with the easily verifiable reality of the situation, and I'd suggest that further discussion be informed more by those facts and less by zOMG cabalism. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all of those people are administrators. Not that they would have to be to comment on a block notice. Just trying to set facts straight, Lara. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at some rough numbers. About 17 editors expressed displeasure with Moulton's editing style at his RfC. In addition, Killer Chihuahua closed the RfC and has expressed her unhappiness with how Moulton was behaving, and this is still true, as can be observed above. Only 3 other editors supported Moulton at his RfC and expressed no reservations with his editing style, and 2 of those had not edited with him or interacted with him. Some of these clearly were doing so for ideological reasons, and not to do with the subject of the RfC, which was inability to follow Wikipedia policy. At the RfAr another 3 independent editors chimed in, of which only one thought that an Arbcomm examination of the situation was warranted. So if one adds this up, one finds in the two proceedings, about 20 editors expressed some misgivings about Moulton's editing style, and only one editor who had edited together with Moulton did not (while 2 further editors supported him, but based on limited experience and knowledge). This does not appear to be a particularly good ratio, at least in my opinion. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is, though, a tendency for some fairly tight cliques to develop and to gang up on people they dislike for whatever reason. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be how WikipediaReview operates. Raul654 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not dislike Moulton, no matter what you have read. I would not have put so much effort into trying to help him otherwise. Unfortunately, Moulton showed no willingness to follow the principles of Wikipedia, and has stated repeatedly that he does not want to abide by the principles that Wikipedia is founded on. And that is why Moulton was the subject of an administrative action. It was not because he was ganged up on by a clique or a "cabal".--Filll (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the admins to editors. My issue is how the RFC closed and how an involved editor carried out the block. I believe an uninvolved editor should have done this. Lara❤Love 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying meatpuppetry edits and banned users

Just to clarify a running thread in this discussion (no opinion on the fate of Moulton from me). So... if a banned user says "Article xyxabc on Wikipedia has a problem with content A-B-C for reasons X-Y-Z," anyone here making matching changes is then editing on behalf of a banned user? What if they are good edits--removing typos, BLP violations, or just really good suggestions for a content change? If that is reversible, because it's on "behalf of a banned user", if we enforse this, all that is required is for the banned people at Wiki Review to just keep giving good suggestions. Am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't it make sense to only apply this standard to BAD edits? If, for example, someone at WR says to say Abraham Lincoln had a pet elephant, and someone added that fact (beyond it being stupid vandalism) that would be bad. But if someone at WR says that the 7th footnote on Abe's article would be better with different wording--and gosh, someone agrees--and implements that wording: is this a bad act? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In the example given above, a careful consensus was achieved by discussion on the article talk page, then at Moulton's bidding a new user (albeit one who says they had edited previously under a different account) effectively reverted the agreed version to a previous version which had not been accepted. Is that a BAD edit? Does that make it ok to recruit editors to make changes that disregard consensus on Wikipedia, to conform to arguments put on an outside forum? ... dave souza, talk 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a case by case sorta thing. Considering Moulton's past and his attacks on the ID project, making edits he advocates are questionable at best. Baegis (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all criticism is an attack. This was the state of the article just before Moulton's first edit. If anyone thinks that this is an appropriate biography of a living person, we don't really have anything further to talk about. This is an attack piece containing nothing but criticism of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. When Moulton attempted to fix it, he was attacked by the ID project, who turned around and banned him. The vast majority of those commenting on the RFC are ID project members. The person who instituted the block is an ID project member. When someone does something worthy of criticism and is criticized for it, that is not a personal attack. The way that this "ban" was handled was absolutely terrible and is very much worthy of criticism. There comes a point where the differences are irreconcilable, even though the fault may be Wikipedia's not Moulton's and an unban isn't helpful to anyone. I haven't formed an opinion yet as to whether we are at that point, but I have formed an opinion that Moulton was wronged at least as much as he was in the wrong. --B (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

B, saying that this was the state of the article when Moulton first editing it, as if that were the consensus on the article, is deeply misleading and prejudicial. Hrafn, then a brand new editor, had removed the unsourced material per BLP. What ensued was some heated between two new editors; one (Hrafn) who understood sourcing, but not the idea of (UN)DUE weight, and the other who did not understand the idea of sourcing. Neither of them properly understood sourcing policy. So what happened? They managed to hash things out to the point where the article reflected the sources that they had. Not bad for a couple of newbies. Then what? Moulton spent the next few weeks insisting that the article should explain that Picard signed a blank petition, that she didn't know what she was signing, that she wasn't a supporter of intelligent design (and that he could knew it as a fact because he knew "Roz"). And since then - Hrafn, like any newbie, refined his understanding of policy. And Moulton continued to complain about the system. Both started out with an incomplete understanding of policy. One editor adapted to the principles of Wikipedia. The other insisted that Wikipedia adapt to him. Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, no disrespect intended, but did you even read my post above? If I did not feel the biography should not be cleaned up when I first talked to Moulton August 23, 2007, why did I devote many hours to trying to do so? I sent out emails and made many phone calls. Why did I do so if I wanted to keep the biography in its August 22nd, 2007 state? Your claims are not supported by the evidence.

As I offered above, I will be glad to give you some information about why the biography was in that state on August 22nd, 2007 and why it did not drastically improve until a week or two ago, if you want to contact me. Otherwise, I will not clog this page with trivia that most people are not interested in. Ask me if you want to know; do not assume.--Filll (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I will not unban Moulton, as I am going out of town shortly and will not be around to be responsible for the consequences. However, as giving difficult users second chances is SOP, and given the issues surrounding the article and block, it seems that a second chance is appropriate. Thatcher 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even though the editor does not seem to be aware of the problem with his behaviour? That seems rather odd. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In brief, yes. The block button will still be there in the event it is required again. Thatcher 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Odd. Then why do we permaban anyone at all? It seems to me that there needs to be, at the very least, some sort of assurance that the problematic behaviour will change, a willingness to abide by our core principles, like WP:V. Guettarda (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • We have blocked or banned (for example) Hkelkar and his socks so many times that it is clear he will never be an asset. I'm talking about a second chance, not a sixth. Thatcher 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Here is my current position on the situation: User:Filll/Moultonunblock. If you want more details about the Picard biography and why it was a mess and why it remained a mess for a few months, then ask me and I will be happy to help you out. This is not the result of some nefarious plot or an attempt to smear someone or to get revenge. This has a far more prosaic set of reasons, and in fact I suggested repeatedly that we just delete the Picard biography if it was going to cause so much rancor, but I was overruled.--Filll (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Alternatively to asking you for your view, one could just walk the edit history of the article and its talk. That's what I did. Why exactly several of the ID project members are viewed by many as apparently seeming to favor giving undue weight to this petition seems a different and larger matter, that may not be amenable to determining from the histories of the articles, so perhaps you could shed some light on whether that is an accurate impression, and why or why not, and if it's inaccurate, why it seems to be held by at least a few folk? As for deleting the article entirely I would probably now comment favorably if it were brought to AfD again. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why he was, and why he is, blocked

We seem to have different ideas of just _what_ he did "wrong" to get blocked. The RFC seems unusually focused on the blatantly false claim that he is anti-evolution and is lying about it and is lying about other people not being anti-evolution. To all accounts this seems to be what he was, at the end of the day, banned for. Yet now people are saying that his engagement style is disruptive. Well - maybe the two are related - maybe he was driven to it - to the "trolling", even, by people who were making false accusations about him and trying to keep BLP-violating stuff in articles. He can't commit to improving his behavior if he isn't even told that _this_ (whatever exactly "this" is) - rather than supposedly lying about his own and others' beliefs - is what he's doing wrong. And continuing with extremely tenuous accusations such as "recruiting meatpuppets" isn't the way to go - let's focus on what (if anything) he's ACTUALLY doing wrong, rather than trumped-up misinterpretations. --Random832 (contribs) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The fundamental reason he was blocked was that he could not work with others, could not work towards consensus, and disregarded the policies of Wikipedia like WP:NOR and WP:COI and WP:RS and so on. And announced frequently that he intended to do so and continue to do. And still does.--Filll (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In short - if he keeps being told that he is a liar and a creationist, then of course he's not going to accept that there are problems with his behavior, and of course he's going to think the problem is the people telling him that, because he knows that those are false accusations. I think that the ID project members in general, and Filll and FeloniousMonk in particular, need to post a retraction of those accusations before we can move forward. (or, if you still think he _is_ a liar and a creationist, we can redo the RFC - if your evidence of those claims is as good today as it was then, I should have no trouble refuting it.) --Random832 (contribs) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I ever claimed he was a creationist. I am not sure what I believe about his personal position, since he changed what he claimed often. He could have easily been "gaming" the system or testing us and our responses, as he claimed he was doing in outside publications documenting his experiences on Wikipedia.

I do not believe it is relevant, frankly. I think the only thing that is relevant is the reason the RfC was filed; inability or unwillingness to work with others and abide by the principles of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"In addition Moulton presented himself as a supporter of evolution, someone opposed to intelligent design, someone opposed to creationism and the agenda of the Discovery Institute. Moulton did this in private emails, on the telephone and in numerous Wikipedia postings (for example, [101]). However, this actually is incorrect, and Moulton was falsely representing himself and his views: [102] [103][104][105] [106], which became copiously clear." these being links that, to my reading, contain neither evidence that he was falsely representing himself and his views, nor that his views were other than being pro-evolution / opposed to ID/creationism / opposed to the DI which you all but explicitly claim. Still want to say you haven't claimed that? --Random832 (contribs) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As Random points out, the RFC did contain strong accusations that Moulton was an ID/creationist sympathizer (from several different editors). But the evidence presented did not back that up, and I haven't seen any statements from him since then that do. This doesn't change the fact he needs to promise to change his behavior, but in turn we as a community need to be more careful about what we do claim about another editor's real thoughts and intentions. - Merzbow (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And you say NOW that inability to work with others was the reason the RFC was filed, but from what I can tell, calling him a liar is what the RFC is all about - and I wouldn't want to work with people who call me a liar either. --Random832 (contribs) 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are picking out one small section of the RfC to focus on. The actual complaint, without endorsements, has 95 links and is 18,430 bytes, and does not include this material at all, but only focuses on some behavioral problems. The "Inside View from Filll" has 12 links and 2755 bytes, and is not the main complaint but a small addendum to clarify something that I found dismaying that I felt I had to reveal and complain about.

The "Inside View from Filll" describes my experience at being manipulated by Moulton, which really took advantage of my assumptions of good faith. I have no idea what Moulton's personal religious positions and beliefs are, nor do I care. What I object to is being manipulated. I am not sure I would call it "lying" exactly, since from his later publications, he maintained that he was trying to cause disruption on Wikipedia on purpose to test Wikipedia's response to disruption so he could publish about it. This was certainly being disingenuous, and a misrepresentation of Moulton's purpose on Wikipedia, but I am not sure I would call Moulton a "liar".--Filll (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And, if it's simply behavioral problems rather than anything wrong with his ideas, then it's not clear why he shouldn't be allowed to point out problems in articles for others to fix in their own way, and how this "recruiting meatpuppets" is even an offence at all (since despite you calling them meatpuppets there's clearly no-one that's offering to uncritically regurgitate any and all edits he suggests) --Random832 (contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I read this long thread, and do not find any convincing arguments to lift the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Moulton would be willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules, if unblocked. I was engaging him in discussion on his talk page shortly before he was originally blocked, and found him to be pretty reasonable, once he had calmed down from his interaction with several members of Wikiproject intelligent design, which had left him a bit aggravated and confused, IMO. I don't know if he has much interest in editing beyond addressing the coatrack, undue weight, and BLP issues he ran into on Rosalind Picard and James Tour, but I do believe it's time to give him a real chance here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense but that really is not particularly compelling since this is at best 2nd hand. --Filll (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

His behaviour is closely tied to his ideas that WP should produce original research in some sort of "journalistic standards". The suspicion that he was claiming to be anti-ID while appearing to support their views was only part of the RfC which came in the context of his tendentious conduct on talk pages, and was not commented on or supported by all those taking part. Looking over the evidence now it seems to me that his expressed support for an ID proponent comes from some similarities in ideas and his use of buzzwords gave an unfortunate impression, but that's not the meat of the problem. The essential is that he conform to policies and talk page guidelines, but there has been no indication that he is willing to make such changes in behaviour. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after only a few exchanges with him, Moulton told me that "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia." [2] Also note in that diff that he had been confused by the use of sarcasm, and had not picked up on the misconceptions regarding his beliefs.

So of course his exchanges with Wikiproject intelligent design did not help him become a good editor. They didn't deal with his actual issues and attacked him for something he didn't believe in, serving to further confuse him. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss out the rest of his paragraph – "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies.

I assure you that I did my utmost to deal with his genuine concerns about biographies, but as stated earlier in that thread do not consider that Wikipedia should exercise censorship of reliably sourced non-defamatory information on the basis of hearsay evidence. His beliefs remain obscure, but his citing at least one ID proponent with apparent approval and his use of the common creationist claim that microevolution and macroevolution are distinct gave the impression of some sympathy with their cause. However, open creationists have been welcomed at ID articles when they discuss issues constructively and work within policy. My concern, and evidently MastCell's, was with his tendentious and extended arguments and failure to accept NOR. .. dave souza, talk 23:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the comment was the end of the dialog, but it clearly demonstrates that Moulton is not as inflexible as he's made out to be. He has been willing to learn and understand what Wikipedia is and how to go about it. I have also seen that he's learned a lot about Wikipedia's policies in the time since his block was enacted.

However, I don't see why he would understand policies at that time, when they were applied unevenly. It took intervention by far more experienced editors on two separate occasions in order to improve the undue weight, coatrack, and BLP issues on Picard's article. He didn't know policy, but he knew the article was wrong, so why would he accept policy when it was quoted in order to defend something clearly wrong? Now that he's got a better understanding of policies regarding undue weight, coatrack articles, and BLP, I believe he's likely to accept policies against OR as well. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterization of the situation isn't it? After all, when did we finally get access to a statement of Picard's personal beliefs? Just last week, even though we and others had asked for it many many many times for months and months. If she supposedly thought that intelligent design was nonsense, then we had to have a source. Were we supposed to publish this with no sources based on nothing? You think that would have been reasonable and ethical, even even reasonable and ethical "journalism"? And the reason there were many editors involved was that a huge war erupted when people attempted to white wash the sourced material out of the article. And the reason the article became a "COATRACK", or violated UNDUE, was material that violated copyright, or was plagiarized was removed from it last August. And although assorted BLP warriors such as Moulton appeared, they were unwilling to actually write anything, but instead just wanted to fight. This could all be solved if people (1) followed the sources (2) actually wrote something instead of plagiarizing.--Filll (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is blatantly obvious that if an article has some content that was a copyvio, it should be removed; if the article then winds up blatantly lopsided and unbalanced, that should be corrected by further removal. None of this is unusual except, apparently, in this particular sector of Wikipedia. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. For example, see the history of Mike Cox. I found this version. It had copyvio, I threw up a notice, announced my intentions on the talk page and waited. I then removed the copyvio and unsourced/unreliably sourced text, what remained was massively unbalanced, so it went too, and we are left with a stub. This is standard practice in handling BLP articles. If the ID project doesn't do things that way, that's a matter for considerable concern, I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the ID Wikiproject is any different from any other in this respect. And I did not remove the copyright violation and I do not know if a current member of the project removed the copyright violation at that time, but it was removed. And it was unbalanced. So Moulton and I and others tried to address it. And things went downhill from there. And it was so contentious I suggested several times just removing the article completely, as you suggested. But others did not want to go down that route. And so it had certain things done that needed to be corrected, and there was a request to the parties involved to correct them since last August. And finally, the cooperation that had been requested repeatedly materialized, and then things moved to their present much improved state and continue to improve, with a small firestorm or two in the last couple of weeks that was uncalled for. So what is the problem?--Filll (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... "what is the problem?" That it took this long and caused this much contention to fix one coatrack that seemed apparently to be a focus of the ID project. Take a read through what Sam Korn says, below. His dispassionate review of matters draws significantly different conclusions about several matters about which you and other ID members have been asserting, and I for one am a bit curious as to why that is. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Several people have already mentioned that the ID wikiproject is different in terms of BLP cleanup, so your basic premise is wrong. I note with amusement that the recent improvements, which were at the time attacked as meatpuppeting, are now being touted as a success. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And for that matter - on the ground, Wikipedia _does_ have some elements of journalism. For example, these articles. Or these ones. Yes, it's not supposed to be, but in practice articles do violate that principle, more often than NOT. --Random832 (contribs) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So you claim that most Wikipedia articles violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and that these are standards we should discard? Do I have that correct? --Filll (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll: That is a false dichotomy, and I suspect you already know it, but used it for rhetorical effect anyway. To be precise: I can feel that there are some (who said "most" ??) articles that violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR without wanting to discard them., the two views are not dichtomic. If this is the typical level of your argument I can see why Moulton had trouble with trying to work with you, but I'm going to assume instead that you've overexcited by matters and it wasn't typical at all. Just as a tip though, if you want to be taken seriously outside your own project where everyone knows you, and make effective points, it may be more effective not to use such rhetorical flourishes when they are likely to confuse or distract. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you to spare me the personal attacks and to WP:AGF it at all possible and avoid such aggresive and tortuous argumentation. It reflects quite poorly on you. Just a friendly suggestion.

And I of course was asking this for clarification because I wanted to repeat back what I thought I had heard since it seemed a little hard to believe. Do you think this is not permitted? I was under the impression that was a good technique to avoid misunderstanding. Do you dispute that?

Also, I interpreted "more often than not" to mean "most". Do you dispute that might be a common interpretation of the phrase "more often than not"? How would you interpret the phrase "more often than not"?

Also, the aspects of asserting that Wikipedia should function as "online journalism" that Moulton was advocating that got him into trouble were pushing for the discard of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, among other principles. Now in a journalistic setting, you can argue a point or take some sort of editorial stance that is decidedly not NPOV. And you are expected to do your investigation and not follow NOR. But those are our principles here, at least at the moment. So I was asking for clarification, since I did not want to misinterpret what positions of Moulton's you were advocating we adopt, or what positions you were defending. Is this inappropriate? Please show me the place in policy where it shows that I cannot ask these questions to understand better what you position you are a proponent of. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"So you claim that most Wikipedia articles violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and that these are standards we should discard?" which is a quote of your statement, is the FIRST mention of NPOV and NOR in this section. So it's not clear who you are talking to, now that I think about it. Who were you asking that of, anyway? Random832? Note that his "more often than NOT" was a link to a section of what wikipedia is not, rather than just an assertion about probability. Couched that way, it's too clever, and thus both confusing and true. True, because WP:NOT says "never should an article be X" for a lot of different Xs, including "news story like". But it is true that there is at least one article in WP that is "news story like" (I could find one, and so could you). Hence that's more often than "NOT" (which == 0 by that reasoning, 1 is more than 0). But it is also confusing, because it does read, at first glance, like "51%" which is the conventional meaning of "more often than not". It confused you, it confused me, and it was a rhetorical flourish I wouldn't have used were I Random. So, apologies there for not spotting why you were confused and jumping on that point. But I still think your own false dichotomy wasn't useful. As to you or anyone asking for clarification, it is absolutely a good idea. I just don't think that it's a good idea if it's not clear what you were asking! ...which I don't think it was in this case... The way your phrase was worded, it read like you were only posing that as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. I'm not Random, but I don't think Random, you, or I are claiming that most articles actually are news stories at present, although some are. Apologies if you took offense.

All that aside... I personally don't think that Wikipedia should be "online journalism". We have Wikinews for that. I also don't think that "journalistic ethics" are a perfect fit for our environment. SOME sort of ethics clearly are, though, in my personal opinion (some others disagree but I think they're wrong, an ethics free project is not a good project). And starting from some tenets of journalistic ethics to develop ours may give some value (rather than starting from, say, ditch digger ethics, which have far less in common with writing articles...) From journalistic ethics, I'd keep the part about not deliberately doing harm, and telling the truth, or at least reporting accurately on what others are saying, but drop the part about it being OK to have an editorial opinion (a POV, in other words) that is so common in journalism which is often written to persuade rather than inform. We don't have POV here, nor should we. We have RS and V rather than "truth" and we have NPOV rather than editorial opinion. Those are foundational principles, and no one can edit effectively here for long without editing within the lines they proscribe. One doesn't have to AGREE with them, you just have to abide. Moulton did not abide before. Until and unless he does agree to abide now, regardless of his personal view, he would get blocked again for straying, (you know lots of people would be watching for any straying), sooner or later. That being so, it is still completely seperable from whether he found a problem in some of the articles that ID was apparently perceived (at least by some) as "owning" at the time. He did. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any confusion caused by "more often than NOT" - I saw an opportunity to use a pun to emphasize the issue, and took it. That said, while it's obviously not really a straight majority of articles, the problem is systemic, and we should be responsible in the way we - if at all - cover recent events and in particular real people that are related to those events. To put it in clearer terms, my point is that whether we should or not, we do often engage - irresponsibly in some cases - in what can only be called journalism, and that Moulton should not be faulted for calling it what it is. My post was specifically in reaction to the statement "I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies. --Random832 (contribs) 07:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely think you are right. It certainly isn't such an agreement on his part. And until Moulton agrees to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies, unblocking him would be a symbolic gesture, because as soon as he didn't, bzzt, that would be it. You know it, because lots of people would be watching. That's why my primary advocacy here hasn't been for an unblocking, it's been that there be some examination of how we interact with academics. Further on, Filll relates an excellent example of how his experiences and Moulton's presuably were very similar, up until the part where Filll apparently decided "OK, there's a lot here that's different but I am going to work within the system" and Moulton apparently decided "This is BS, this will never work, these people need to have some other principles explained to them" and flamed out. I posit that both Filll and Moulton are outliers. The vast majority of academics, I suspect, merely give up in frustration, quietly, and go away, and then have nothing kind to say about Wikipedia or working there to their peers and students. Successful participation here is rare. Too rare. That's the bigger problem than unblocking one academic who is by his own admission not likely to change his approach from one of "here's what you all need to do to change, embrace it now!" to "I'm here to work with you under the current terms, and as I work and build credibility maybe I can advocate for some changes". ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me just now. My original statements about the problems with current events coverage were, rather, a reaction to the statement by dave souza: <<"I'm inclined to believe your estimate, that authentic journalism isn't likely to ever become a feature of Wikipedia. Which begs the obvious question. If Wikipedia is not an instance of journalism, then what the devil is it? Is it sui generis?" That's hardly an agreement to work within the constraints of Wikipedia policies.>>, which I marked by placing in italics - you seemed to think I was talking about the statement of Moulton's in quote marks, and that souza's remarks were my own. --Random832 (contribs) 03:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that that argument -- WP engages in journalism [paraphrasing here] -- will gain much traction. But, I could be wrong. Nonetheless, even if you and Moulton are correct in that assertion, it certainly does not excuse his behaviour. Not sure what part of this is difficult. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not requesting an unblock

Note that Moulton is not requesting an unblock, which may moot some of the discussion above. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the question should be asked rather than making an assumption. When I read his arbcom statement way back when, I remember thinking that while he was probably right more than he was wrong, it was a non-starter because it was all lawyering. If he is saying and attempting to prove, "I was blocked unjustly" as a prerequisite to "please unblock me", then that's fine and it deserves a legitimate review. But if he merely wants to point out flaws in the system and does not wish to return (If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve) then you are correct, it's time to move on with life. --B (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, before we possibly move away from the Moulton issue, a lot of important notions have been raised about what to do with a community ban/indef block, including the difference between the two, and how to go about bringing back a user if an admin is willing to unblock (which negates the community ban). While this probably should be expounded on in a new thread, this is something that does need to be addressed and, if possible, standardized. We have recently had two separate editors come up for block reviews that elicited a lot of response and confusion about the lack of a system that is in place. I know that these have been carried out on the AN/I board and/or on this board, but it seems clear the community is confused by the whole issue. Short of any guidance from ArbCom, maybe we could work this out somewhere. Thoughts on that? Baegis (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Current practice is that an indefinite block must have the unanimous tacit consent of those with the ability to undo the block (administrators). In society outside of Wikipedia, such cases are tried by a selected jury. The problem with a decision based on a popular vote on the former community sanction noticeboard or on ANI is that it would be like impaneling your jury from whoever happened to show up in court that day. So if 12 of the prosecutor's best friends show up in court, the evidence doesn't really matter. So in order to demonstrate that a ban is a community ban, rather than merely a lynching, it needs to have unanimous consent or it needs to be determined by an impartial select group (Arbcom). --B (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is obviously still confusion about the whole issue. Codifying it can't hurt. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

@B: I was looking at his statement in the above diff: "I am not seeking to be unblocked." Of course you're right, this all may be a prelude to an unblock request, but I'm not sure how much more angst we need to expend on the unblock issue at present when he's flatly stated he isn't seeking to be unblocked. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the next sentence, "Rather I am seeking a review of the circumstances surrounding my encounter with the WikiProject on Intelligent Design." If that review is for the purpose of saying "ha ha, told you so", we have better ways of spending our time. If that review is for the purpose of demonstrating that the block is invalid and asking to be permitted to contribute to the development of the encyclopedia, then it is more worthwhile. --B (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That he is requesting a general review of events, rather than an unblock, suggests to me that he really doesn't understand how Wikipedia operates at all, which is very surprising given the amount of time he spends on WR. I was sympathetic to unblocking him earlier, but now I agree that it may be best to just forget about him. Everyking (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen to his statements in the NTWW episode below. He wants to demand huge reforms of Wikipedia, based on his whims, including discard of several of its core principles, and he wants to have bad things happen to all those who "wronged" him. And then and only then will he be interested in returning. Or at least that is how I understand the situation.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is free to advocate whatever reforms they wish on the appropriate policy talkpages and off-wiki. I don't see the relevance of that. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've advocated several myself, some quite radical indeed. That in no way shape or form means that I am "demanding" them as a condition of my participation here (and such a statement should be met with "ok, then, don't participate, then..." User:Mindspillage/userpages is a special case statement of that notion, and you'll find it on my user talk). But the issue I have is that I'm not seeing Moulton's statements before the block as "demanding" changes in governance. I see them as suggestions. To the extent that they interfered with his ability to edit effectively, with his ability to participate in article discussions, in policy discussions, etc, they were a self imposed hindrance. But I don't see them as a blockable offense in and of themselves or else we would never be able to propose any policy changes at all. So I see Filll as presenting a bit of a red herring here with this. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I think there is no problem with advocating changes at Wikipedia. After all, what am I doing at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing and User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal, among other places? The reason this is relevant is (1) it is expressed as part of the preconditions and (2) it is expressed as part of Moulton's goals, and always was, and was the root problem that Moulton ran into at Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue is surreal. Claiming, in essence, that Moulton was standing on principle in refusing to follow WP's various policies -- no he was flouting the policies -- and that his absolute abject refusal to cooperate, his extreme COI problems, his inability to either comprehend or abide by NPOV and NOR are also indicative of a principled stand, is singularly ridiculous. There are things I think are problematic (i.e., broken) at WP, but I don't go around wreaking havoc to make a point; and that, my friends is precisely what Moulton has done: wreaked havoc at every conceivable opportunity. And, in light of all this, some folks think that, despite his continued belligerence garbed as martyrdom, he should get a second chance. If at first you don't totally screw the project up, try, try again? Meh. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I care awfully, but a couple of examples of said havoc would be good. None in this entire thread. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch speaks strongly. I think others come to different conclusions, including myself. I think Sam's analysis below rather belies Jim62sch's assertions. It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lar, I didn't realise that you were involved with Moulton from the get go. Oh, you weren't? Those of us who were there remember the series of events quite well.

As far as anyone's analysis belying anything, that's really just a matter of interpretation, both on the part of the analyst (in what he chooses to present) and the audience (in how they choose to internalise the presentation). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I don't have to be involved with something from the get go to be able to recognize when something is not completely one sided. Your recounting of things makes it seem like everyone else acted perfectly throughout and the fault is all Moulton's. Others come to different conclusions. Why is that? They're all confused and only you have the truth here? ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I am astounded about this drum you have decided you have to beat over and over about "one-sidedness" of culpability. A day or so before you posted this, Dave souza made a pointed admission that "mistakes were made". Baegis and others have also made the same allusion in this same thread. However, if it makes you happier, I have compiled my own evaluation of the mistakes made here.--Filll (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That is sure not how I read Sam's analysis. And that is sure not how I read the RfC. To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior? My goodness. Incredible. And no one caught that? Not the Arbcomm during the appeal. Not the handful of editors supporting Moulton. Not the 20 or so editors who thought Moulton was problematic. That is quite a story.--Filll (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll: Sometimes I'm amazed at your perceptiveness (my comment made just before this one references your analysis of your experience and Moulton's as similar up to a point) and at the good work you do (such as User:Filll/AGF_Challenge ... were you ever going to do some rollup analysis on what was said?), and sometimes I am not sure you're reading what I am saying and/or twisting it around. This is one of the latter times. Focus on my last sentence... "It will be helpful if Jim62sch internalizes that the fault in this case may not be entirely with one party." That's what I see here. Certain parties continue to assert that the fault here is entirely Moulton's. I think the truth is more nuanced than that. I think Moulton went about a lot of things all wrong, and there is a lot of truth in that RfC. " To claim the RfC contains not one example of problematic behavior?" Please give me a precise cite where I say there is no fault for Moulton. I after all have been saying I didn't support an unblock without a commitment to adhere. (now it's been advanced that it could be symbolic... ok...) Filll, please slow down and read what I say more carefully. "may not be entirely with one party" != "is all with the other party" Unless of course you were talking to Relata??? In which case never mind... (this is where using the "to userX"/"@ userX" construction or sticking your remark above the other so it is below who you are replying to, but indenting it deeper to show it came later, might be effective) ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I choose to make vague comments on some occasions, undirected towards anyone in particular given the treacherousness of this environment. However, it is my perception, accurate or not, that some have maintained or suggested that there is no evidence of difficult behavior by Moulton. I would like to disabuse anyone who holds that position of any such notion; that does not mean Moulton could not reform and should not be given a second chance. And as stated by Dave souza and others repeatedly, "mistakes were made" on all sides. To satisfy your somewhat peculiar desire to see a partial compilation of some of these mistakes, I present this.--Filll (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure that everyone has done things that can be criticised, editors accept the need to negotiate towards a consensus and then accept that consensus or follow dispute resolution procedures. The problem I found with Moulton was that he would agree to a compromise aimed at meeting his objectives, then resume tendentious demands for changes,[3] while describing Wikipedia as a "profoundly dysfunctional" "rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy" unable to meet his ideas of "ethics on online journalism".[4] . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conversation with Moulton

'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' has just finished an audio conversation in which Moulton participated. You can hear it here (episode 16). I believe it's fair to characterise Moulton's position as wanting / demanding some sort of statement that his treatment was not representative of 'due process' before he would be willing to re-engage in the editing processes. We had some discussion as to how this might work (an arbcom statement?) - or indeed if it is even possible. I would support an unblock as and when Moulton lets us know that he wants one. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea there. Demand a statement/apology for the way he was treated even though he contributed nothing to the project. So when can I expect his apology for calling me a sock and a troll? Or when can the entire ID group expect apologies, both to the group and many of the individuals? I demand an apology from him for his behavior. Since I have contributed far more to the project, I would hope my request is honored if his is honored. I also want the apology written out and certified by a notary. Maybe gold leaf printing, I will get back to you on that. Come on... Baegis (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, I looked through your contribs and basically you created your account, went head on straight into Moulton (without editing near him before) Then after he was banned you went after others supporting a few counter to the ID crowd (reverting vandalism off and on but usually between 10 or so "rough" sounding "talk" with people that didn't agree with the Project ID crowd. Odd. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering you are hiding behind an IP address I will take your flimsy accusations that I am either a sock (well, technically this account is, but in line with policies), a troll, a meat puppet or what have you with a big giant chunk of salt. Did you ever think that maybe I was watching a great number of these articles before I ever started editing? Probably not, because it is so much easier to hide behind an IP and throw around accusations. Methinks this whole thing is slowly becoming less and less about Moulton and more about attacking the people who work on the ID articles. Strange that they have been advocating this attack on the WR pages for some time now. Strange times indeed. And I do want that apology from Moulton with gold leaf lettering. Baegisthesock (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the ID group also owe apologies. I don't recall that _he_ ever demanded them, but specific blatantly false accusations were made. --Random832 (contribs) 03:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"He contributed nothing to the project" is bullshit - he certainly drew attention to BLP problems. But I guess that's not worth anything, nor is anything else he could have done in the past eight months had he not been banned. --Random832 (contribs) 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He created more BLP problems than he solved, NPOV problems too. In fact, the articles he campaigned on remain essentially the same, in fact are now more complete, than before his attempts to whitewash them. Furthermore, you have a strange notion of solving problems: tendentious editing, edit warring and ignoring consensus are far from best practices if your goal is solving problems; creating problems, certainly, not never solving them. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you waste several hundred hours of volunteer's time, and end up with an article that is essentially unchanged in the particulars you are complaining about, I do not see that you have really solved many problems.--Filll (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure everyone agrees with that characterization. I'm assuming you were talking about Rosalind Picard... here it is just before Moulton appears on the scene. The last section is a WP:Coatrack of unduly weighted, negatively slanted material about what is, after all, a relatively minor incident, and it is placed out of the proper context. And that's AFTER considerable editing, including edit warring, had happened. The way the petition section reads now is much better, it places this controversy in a larger context of her overall views, all appropriately cited. If that is your view of an "essentially unchanged" article, then I suggest you may not be the best person to work on BLP issues. Now, was Moulton the only person to try to improve the article? Hardly. Did Moulton go about it the right way? Hardly. (but go read WP:DOLT for some perspective here... we have a real problem with fitting academics into our processes effectively). Yes, it took the efforts of others to fix it. But how long would it have sat unfixed? Therefore, to say that Moulton did not contribute to the encyclopedia in a positive way is false, in my view. Bringing problems to the attention of those that can effectively resolve them is goodness. Oh, and strolling through the talk page briefly, I'm not seeing your positive contributions, but I may have missed them. What I see is that it took Kim Bruning to try to straighten this out and that a goodly number of the same voices here decrying Moulton's every word, decrying his very presence here, were the very ones that seemed to be advocating that the article stay all nice and coatracky instead of balanced. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think before you make any such claims, you should know a bit more than you do. Because almost everything you just claimed is wrong or a misrepresentation of what the situation was and what happened. Is this really the time and place to rehash this? And how many times do I have to repeat myself? If I do it a couple times, and people exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then it is clear that there is some other agenda being pursued here. And that is what starts to become apparent. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some other agenda? Yes, I suppose there is. I'd prefer that we not have even the appearance of projects exerting ownership over articles to retain problematic information. I'd prefer not to see so much difficulty and resistance in fixing one BLP. We have 250,000 plus of them after all, with conservative estimates that hundreds or thousands are problematic or highly problematic. I'd prefer we find better ways to deal with editors that don't understand our ways. I'd prefer that we not move from an RfC to an indefinite block quite so fast. I'd prefer that we learn to accept valid input even if it's presented in invalid ways. I'd prefer that we not let things fester so long but address them sooner. I'd prefer that ArbCom not summarily dismiss quite so many things but instead maybe put a bit of effort into explaining matters. Again, I found Sam's analysis quite illuminating. Why is he not on ArbCom any more? As to the suggestion that the claims I make are invalid, I gave the diffs. The article was a mess before Moulton arrived. Now, it's not as bad a mess but it still has issues. I only go by what I saw, and what I found on the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see Moulton make any statement that one, acknowledges his behavior was a source of disruption and pledging to not recreate the same situation, and two, expressing any interest in actually contributing to building a neutral accurate and complete encyclopedia. If that were indeed his goal, rather than returning to the same articles he's disrupted, he's be clamoring with guarantees and solemn promises that he would avoid those topics and edit constructively elsewhere, I'd think. Unfortunately, Moulton has made no such statements, so I see no reason to let him return to his old ways. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No-one has, to my knowledge, yet explained exactly _how_ his behavior was a source of disruption in a way that was not intermingled with demonstrably false claims about the nature of his behavior. Could it not have been other users whose behavior caused the disruption? --Random832 (contribs) 04:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton is a good start. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mention above, I find few article-specific diffs reported there that are different in content from what a dozen previously uninvolved (and unrecruited!) editors have recently argued at Talk:Rosalind Picard in that article's recent push towards consensus. So your statement is going to need something more than that link to be credible, I think. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that to be an absolutely amazing and fantastic claim.--Filll (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I aim to please. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that they are polysemes of course.--Filll (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but I'm assuming the only meaning compatible with good faith and basic rationality. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that Privatemusings is so keen to give a platform banned users through this medium. Perhaps he should hand the microphone to someone with better taste in friends. Moulton was banned for good cause, and his whining and special pleading are simply offensive to the many users he attacked. I'm pleased that Moulton demands an apology before he will deign to grace us with his presence again, that makes it much easier to keep him away by simply not apologising for doing the unambigously correct thing. While we're laying down conditions, I'd not let Moulton back until he acknowledges that WP:TRUTH does not trump WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, since he violated the last three in pursuit of the first and without acknowledging the problem he's not going to overcome it. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Guy sums this up quite well and with much less sarcasm than my message about this apology. Since when do blocked users get the chance to demand things from WP before they will return? How asinine is that? And who even speaks for WP? The ArbCom doesn’t speak for the whole of WP. Arguably, Jimbo is the only one who does (maybe WMF), so maybe Moulton should take this up for him. Baegisthesock (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

People can make whatever demands they like. But I would say that a statement of the form "I can't return to supporting the Republican Party until they drop their plank advocating school prayer" is not a demand to the GOP, it's a statement of principle. Moulton's communications to me highlight that he sees serious problems with project governance and other issues and that until they are addressed and corrected, he won't return. That's not a demand, it's a statement of principle. I happen to not agree, I see problems with WP but not such that I wish to withdraw, but to call it a demand , as Baegis and others seem to be doing, is rhetorical twisting, in my view. That seems actually less helpful to matters than making principled statements. To say that one would like one's case looked into is not unreasonable either, if one feels that the previous investigations didn't get to the root of the matter. It may not be one that ArbCom, the community, whatever, choose to do (my reading of the tea leaves says probably not going to happen in this case), but it also isn't a demand. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, Lar, I respect you as an editor and admin. But it appears as though you are just fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants and it appears you want to give him anything he so desires. Moulton claims he was not afforded due process. But he had an ArbCom appeal rejected regarding the circumstances of his block, in which he felt it was more appropriate to ramble instead of appealing his block and admitting any fault. Since I gather you may not have examined the serious details of this case, I can assure you that Moulton has been making these “statements of principles” for quite a long period of time. There comes a point where these are no longer “statements of principles” so much as they are declarations of ill intent and of a wish to be the center of attention. If someone continually harped on the same topic over and over and clearly stated their goals, especially when they are clearly not inline with the betterment of the encyclopedia, when can we call a spade a spade? Moulton has become a less prolific version of Awbrey, with his arguing tendencies (bet $ that comment gets mentioned on WR). This is nothing more than a user who was blocked continually throwing up the unblock template, looking for a sympathetic admin. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I've confused matters. I am not "fighting for Moulton’s right to do and say whatever he wants". (much less to give him whatever he wants...) No one has that right here. We ALL must edit within the project's boundaries and basic principles, and do so civilly, or we lose the right to do so. I can say both that Moulton still doesn't look likely to be willing or able to do that, and also at the same time decry the way that he's been portrayed by some of his detractors. He seems to have been railroaded, at least a little. See Sam's analysis, below. The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair. Asking for systemic correction is going too far and Moulton isn't going to get that just on his say so... When we see an out and out troll or vandal, we don't give them much other than a swift block, we don't have time for more. But still, that said, Moulton wasn't an out and out troll. Didn't fit in here? Sure. (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is PR. It's more true that not just anyone can edit here for long, it takes a certain mentality and willingness to do things the wikipedia way to fit in and be successful) But his detractors paint too black and white a picture. I haven't changed my view that I don't see the absolute need to unblock him at this time, what's the point? We're not going to change things to fit his conditions and he's not going to edit if we don't. But I also don't see the harm. As many have said, if he DOES act up, that's it, second chance done, gone.

At this point I'm more interested in what could be done differently in future with the next very smart person who comes along and points out things in articles that really do need fixing, but who doesn't fit in here (again, as I said before, see WP:DOLT for some views on this, they are tangential but very appropriate)... rather than just rushing them off and feeling self satisfied that we blocked another troll, maybe flappers/consiglieries/editorial assistants, whatever you want to call it, are needed. Because we don't need the bad PR from treating academics roughly.

I'm also more interested in trying to undestand what is going on with the ID project. Why are there these things swirling around saying that "the Anti ID forces are taking things too far" and the like? What really is going on there? ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton has been advertising his intellect for some time now. I don't doubt that he is smart in many ways, but he showed a disdain for nearly every other editor he faced and dismissed them while basically trying to bore them to death the long meta threads about tangential topics. Awbrey was arguably a very bright person as well, but he was shown the door because could not properly apply his intellect to the betterment of the project. Frankly, it wouldn't matter how smart a person was who came to edit. The current president of Mensa could try to edit here. But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them. The policies can't be bent to accommodate every editor that is "smart". If they could be, can you imagine the chaos? And we already have a somewhat questionable reputation with academics as it is. The supposed mistreatment of one very minor person in academia is not going to cause any great problems. The problems that academics see with us have been noted in a variety of other places so I will not explore them here. But this incident is just a grain of sand in that desert. And that is not a problem easily fixed.

As great as this entire conversation has been, including the large amount of space devoted to it, the simple fact remains that there is an editor who has expressed zero, zip, zilch, nada, no concessions that his editing created problems. He has made no statement that could even be considered to indicate a modicum of change. When has a user ever been unblocked when they have never even admitted fault for their actions? I am not against the unblocking as much as some others, as long as it is tempered with a full assurance from Moulton that he will avoid all areas in which he has a COI violation and his attacks on other editors will cease. But I have yet to see that statement. So, for however much longer people want to continue this, Moulton should never be unblocked if he shows no signs of change. It is as simple as that. And it really goes no further,

The "problem" with the ID articles is that the editors of those articles are constantly bombarded by a trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers who seek to change the articles. It is the same problem that occurs on creationism articles and evolution articles (among others). But some of the editors may have become a bit jaded because, I would wager, that at least 70% of what gets posted on those talk pages is nothing more than trolling. A number of those posts are reverted or archived on sight, per WP:TALK because they do seek to improve the article. I guess some people have a problem with how we carry out business on what is probably the most trolled/vandalized group of articles on the project. Of course those people don't edit the topic or articles, so it is easy to make a drive-by assessment of the problems. Baegis (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ID is only one of many different areas of this encyclopaedia regularly bombarded by trolls and cranks, and nowhere near the worst. (That changes from time to time.) We do not need special pleading on behalf of its overzealous defenders. May I note that the people "don't edit" but "who have a problem" might well be those whom your methods of "carrying on business" are likely to cause them to merely "drive by." --Relata refero (disp.) 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have edited in 3 different controversial areas. And several other areas. And the Intelligent Design Wikiproject editors operate no different than those in any other area.--Filll (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept that it is possible that you genuinely believe that to be true. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To Baegis: "But if they can't adhere to policies, tough shit for them." At one level I agree. At another level, I think that's why Filll is an outlier, an academic who can edit here successfully. Those are too rare, unless you think we don't need any academics here at all. For some topics we don't, but for many encyclopedic topics, we do. That's a much bigger problem. I think it stems from how very hard it is to get an understanding of how things are done here, really. There is a forest of rather impenetrable jargon and policy. Most academics don't get that adequately packaged up in a usable form. Moulton was an outlier too... an academic who had it all patiently explained (that's rarer than the more common, 3RR and you're out sort of interaction) and chose to insist on doing things as he personally thought they should be done. You can call that "disdains us", I guess. I've pled with Moulton privately to commit to edit within the rules and with guidance, and he has declined. I haven't yet pled with him to look within himself and admit the things that he could have done differently (that is, admit there is some fault on his side), but I suspect I know the outcome there too. So, unblocking would be symbolic. But the problem here, the reason I keep worrying at this, is larger than Moulton. If he stays blocked, it's not the end of the world, it's one small pebble (maybe a bit bigger than a grain of sand! but not much). I'll again advance the notion that maybe we need a more structured assimilation program for academics. Not bending rules, but working to help guide. Maybe even interpret and stage material back and forth or something. Because we do need academics. Badly.

(cont'd) As for the ID project, I think you put your finger on part of the problem. We don't as a rule suffer fools gladly, and when a project sees a lot of fools turn up, it may cause members to get a bit embittered and rigid, and then throw some of the wheat out with the masses of chaff. Perhaps your project needs some new blood. If that new blood gets in turn corrupted, or if the older members drive that new blood out, then there is a bigger problem. But I'm also concerned that some of the charges that are being levied (about pursuing those that signed that stupid petition by making their articles coatracky...) that either there is some validity to those charges, or you have a big PR problem. Again, it's a sign of siege mentality to say "the problem here lies ENTIRELY with the other side, not at all with anyone involved with the project, and we refuse to apologise for anything" which (it is my perception that) some of the ID members have been saying, right here in this very thread. Relato rightly calls you on the special pleading aspect. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the need for academics with the need for academic experts. What the project does not need are academics, like Moulton, who come and and make no sincere attempt to understand our policies or to understand how things operate and instead would rather bellow from the top of the nearest soapbox about how things need to change because they say things should. The project does not need these kind of academics. We have enough as it is. We don't need people who will constantly tell us we are doing it wrong and apply their own personal standards. We don't need an editor who has mentioned, on numerous occasions (damned if I can't locate the diffs for this message) mentioned how his entire case has developed into something that he is planning to write about as a study. These are the people we don't need. What we do need and should address, and the conversation has been raging for years, most notably on the Expert Withdrawal page (link further up) is the lack of experts, specifically ones from academia. These are the people the project needs to apply their specialized knowledge within the areas in which said knowledge applies. Moulton never did that. But we need to attract experts to the project and retain them. These are the people who need to be taught how to work within WP policies to contribute. They will help the collective articles and total knowledge base grow exponentially. Moulton, for all of his vitriol, never made an attempt to edit within the areas he was most knowledgeable. I am all for bringing in and retaining experts. There probably aren't many who would be opposed to that general premise.

And with regards to ID, Relato's comment must be taken with the knowledge that, until recently, he never (maybe rarely) appeared on these article. He made one brief appearance a month or so ago and is now holding what will probably be the world's longest grudge because his case for a source being unreliable meet with serious opposition. He has constantly sniped at any and all he feels wronged him, so it is hard to take anything he mentions with any seriousness. Sorry, but if you are going to hold a grudge like that, your advice will go wanting.

But there is a problem with the whole petition issue you brought up, Lar. This petition that these people signed should always be mentioned in their bio and in accordance with policy. Undue weight should not be placed on it. But when does it become the entire ID project's fault when a number of these people have a bio so short that any mention of the petition places it in violation of undue? The bio's need worked on, that is true. But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document. Moulton's goal was never to work on adding to the bio of Picard. It was to eliminate or minimize the references to her signing the petition. For a person who claimed to know Picard so well, he was able to contribute shockingly little to flesing out her bio. Moving away from the Moulton issue, I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means. No matter how much some will try to minimize or distort the implications of the petition, especially since the ultimate use of the petition has been made quite clear, putting your name on this petition is akin to signing a petition declaring the Earth is flat. It is at that level of complete ignorance for everything involving science. Does anyone wonder why no prominent biologist or evolutionary scientists signed this petition? You don't see Dawkins putting his name on this. So, in the world of academia in which Picard and many of these people exist, where your name and work is the best form of currency, the signing of the petition will be mentioned. They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States. But I do concede that it should be mentioned in the bio's in accordance to the undue weight clause. But this is an issue that should be addressed on each biography article. Some of the outside commentators on this case feel that we are, for lack of a better word, libeling these people by making prominent mention of these the petition. In reality, these people signed this petition and are fully capable of removing their names. Remeber, it is verifiability not truth. We can't parse their intentions, we can only report that they signed it and how the petition was used. Baegis (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In response only to the bits addressed to me specifically: my dear chap, if you think a month is a long time to bear a grudge....! In any case, if I noticed that the manner in which doing some routine BLP cleanup was exceptional, I would have forgotten. If it appeared to be merely unusual, I would have not bothered. If I observed that it happened all the time but had no major effect on article quality, I would have not have given it a second thought. None of those things are true. However, I note that since then I have not even once brought up my own experience; and have, with one 48-hour exception, followed the order handed out on my talkpage to "stay away from our articles". I do wish that other people would stop bringing it up, though it does tend to poke a rather large hole in the claim that I am the one "holding a grudge".

As for the rest - "But why does it come back to us to fix them because we entered relevant information about them signing this document...'" and ", I don't know if some of the people here properly grasp what signing this petition means...They, being consenting adults, put their name to a propaganda piece that is being used by a group to try to hijack science education in the States" pretty much sums up why BLPs in this area, as in Middle Eastern studies, are unduly politicised. WP isn't anyone's weapon to strike back at those harming teh childrenz, thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, for people who are constantly claiming that our goals are to be neutral or to be unbiased or not to take sides in any way, I find it somewhat comical that all of a sudden the signing of this petition is viewed as negative. Hey I thought we were not supposed to take sides? Do you think that the Discovery Institute views signing their petition as negative? Do you think that the Institute for Creation Research thinks signing a similar petition some sort of black mark? What do you think Answers in Genesis would say by the implication that standing up for what you believe in is some terrible slur against someone? This is the biggest load of hypocrisy I have seen in a long time. Whoever said signing was bad? Claiming it is bad stinks of bias and nonneutrality and assumptions, which we are forbidden to make. The only thing that is bad about stating a person signed the petition is if the person did not really sign it, or the subject does not adhere to the beliefs expressed in the petition and was tricked into signing. Then, the person has to ask to be removed from the petition, or to issue a statement rejecting the position of the petition, so we can use that as a source, which many have done. What is the problem?--Filll (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For anyone wondering: yes, that is a genuine argument, not sarcasm, amused wordplay, or some form of irony. It has been made several times to support the retention of poorly-referenced negative - sorry "negative" - material in and about BLPs, by implying that it is a violation of NPOV to claim that such material is negative. The mind reels. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am stunned that you try to argue that it is negative necessarily. Huh? We are not here to judge. If they want to believe, what is wrong with that? You know there are claims that it is discrimination to not let people just believe what they want? I would agree. Don't judge. --Filll (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if I am not mistaken he has had his case looked into a few times and continues to do so in variety of fora. Am I wrong?--Filll (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. But the germane question is was it adequately looked at? Perhaps not. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets? Please elaborate, that is the first time I heard of that accusation... Why don't we toss around some more accusations... I'm sure he's a vandal, a terrorist (oh wait, WR makes you a terrorist automatically), and ... actually I'm not very good at fabricating accusations... I'll let the experts handle that, they're doing very well atm. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy's statement about how Privatemusings ought to find "better friends" brings to mind this exchange from the first Harry Potter book:

Draco Malfoy: You'll soon find out some wizarding families are much better than others, Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can help you there.

Harry Potter: I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks.

*Dan T.* (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from someone who was there

The episode itself primarily dealt with the present conflict as a springboard for a conversation about relevant policies and procedures. One observation raised in that discussion was that the community tends to deal with these flash point situations as if they were microcosms unto themselves: too much focus gets placed on evaluations of individual editors without enough attention to whether they may have been acting in faithful accordance with flawed policy. This very discussion about the episode--unfortunately--has become a demonstration of that dynamic.

When I recorded episode 10 I opened a thread at this noticeboard regarding one banned user who was part of the panel, and the responses were not only unanimous but somewhat indignant that a discussion was necessary at all. Now Privatemusings initiates a similar thread and the responses are radically different. I wonder why this dichotomy exists.

It's no secret that Privatemusings spent a short time as a banned editor and that he's made a legitimate return. He's one of a couple of editors whose bans I once supported and whose returns I also supported: both he and I are interested in finding out what works in these situations and how to replicate the success stories. We don't expect perfect success (or anyway, I don't) yet we've also observed that sometimes a voice environment is better than a text environment for communicating nuances and finding common ground.

That's not the only reason NTWW exists; we discuss plenty of other things also and try to provide a good menu of topics and guests for the community. If you'd like to see new items on the menu, please come over to WP:NTWW and propose them: this kitchen accepts requests. :)

Regards from Chef Durova^Charge! 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] moar evidence of meatpuppetry

See my self-accusation here [5]. Basically, all the section at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Meatpuppetry_evidence_since_ban Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Meatpuppetry_evidence_since_indef_block is just an attempt to make User:Moulton guilty of meatpuppetry, using evidence that has undergone no review and has gone through no sockpuppet case. Notice that this same evidence is what caused the MfD on Moulton's user, and now it's being added to a page linked from there. If there is really meatpuppetry, then open a frigging case at WP:SSP even if the user is blocked, but don't post unproven unreviewed evidence on old unrelated cases. This RfC had nothing to do with puppets, and the timing is terrible. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Korn's review of the case

I mentioned before that I invited Moulton to email me with his side of the story and how he sees the situation. He has done so and, I think, has presented his views reasonably. I think he feels aggrieved that his ban resulted from his trying to help the encyclopaedia and to achieve the important goals that are set out in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There can, I think, be no doubt that his intentions were positive.

Furthermore, he is aggrieved that "due process" was not afforded him (he frames this as "I am not sure whether due process was afforded me, and so whether my treatment was systemic or accidental"). My impression is that this is, to a certain extent, true. The move from the RFC to an indefinite ban (I hold the distinction between an indefinite ban and an indefinite block without immediate prospect of unblocking to be spurious) was out of order. Indefinite bans should not be handed out so incautiously -- they are a big deal and they should be given with proper consideration. You should be very careful when considering a user in whose good faith there is no particular reason to doubt. The process by which it was affirmed was rather dodgy -- the brief conversation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Moulton and a brief conversation on ANI were rather cursory (admittedly through no fault of the participants).

Frankly, I also think the Arbitration Committee got this one pretty badly wrong. This is exactly the kind of case where the Committee should be involved -- a good faith user who is apparently incapable (as I shall discuss below) of complying with Wikipedia's norms in a certain area. Community sanctions are a tool far too blunt to deal with situations like this: it needed the careful consideration of the Committee. As I shall explain below, I think there were ways in which this could have been more effectively managed with greater subtlty and care. Being so bold as to suggest the reason for the Committee's wrong decision, I would suggest that the wording of the request -- with its emphasis on "due process" -- would have been off-putting to the Committee members (had I been on the Committee, it would have been off-putting to me!); it would have made them think Moulton was attempting to rules-lawyer his way to an unblock. That said, the idea that the Committee should take on some kind of abstract "was the system wrong?" case is absurd: the Committee should make decisions that are entirely based on the future and ensuring the correct solutions are in place.

I have said all this in Moulton's defence to emphasise that his grievances have some merit. However, I do not wish to give the impression that I think there were no major issues with Moulton's editing. Moulton undoubtedly did engage in POV-pushing. I don't think he fully understands what the verifiability policy is about (in his emails to me he suggested that policies in this area were contradictory) means. This is a serious problem. Although the conflict of interest guidelines do not prohibit anyone from editing a particular area (and nor should they, as long as we have anonymous editing), they do rightly advise that anyone incapable of editing neutrally and without emotional involvement should recuse himself. This was a situation where that advice should have been heeded. Moulton's editing was not satisfactory and some remedy was necessary. The trouble was that the action taken was somewhat akin to knitting with a barge-pole.

The other policy violations that are alleged are somewhat spurious. The charges of edit-warring are, I think, accurate, but not particularly serious. The idea of "disruptive editing" is, again, accurate, but comprehensible, particularly as others in the dispute were also conducting themselves in an unhelpful manner. The charges of "personal attacks" are wholly unfounded -- while he may have (unreasonably) accused editors of malfeasance, I do not personally feel that his statements did indeed become personal attacks. The accusation of "disruption to cause a point" is similar if one makes a basic assumption of Moulton's good faith. The accusation of meat-puppetry fundamentally misunderstands what meat-puppetry is.

So what now? Moulton indicates that what he wants is some kind of statement that due process was not afforded. This is a problem because Wikipedia is not focussed on due process -- and rightly so. What it important here is that the action taken was not whollyy appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right". From what he has expressed to me privately, though, he wants some declaration one way or the other: "this was the system as it should work" or "this was a malfunctioning system"; I am not sure we can give that declaration.

As to whether Moulton should be permitted to resume editing... As can probably be understood from what I have written above, I don't think the original block was correct. It could much more effectively have been managed with sanctions prohibiting the behaviour that earned the ban. Now, however, the situation is different. Moulton indicates to me (and I believe also in the NTWW conversation) that he requires the declaration of whether the system worked before he would continue editing: were the answer to be "yes", he would not want to; were the answer "no", he would want the system to be massively overhauled before he would consider editing again. Quite plainly, therefore, unblocking would have no practical effect.

That said, I advocate it in any case. A wrong should be righted. I advocate unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively", whether or not that will be upheld. We unblocked Lir and were right to do so. If Moulton is willing to return, there should be no obstacle preventing him from doing so; I see every reason to think he could be a productive editor if he was willing to engage with Wikipedia's policies.

Frankly, there is nothing to be lost from unblocking Moulton.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said Sam - hear hear. Privatemusings (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your belief that arbcom got this one wrong, I hope that this is being discussed on Arbcom-L (which I know you are a member of) as well. Do committee members agree that they got it wrong? Or are you alone in this belief? Mike R (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I perceive there are two lists now, one for those currently arbitrators and one including alumni. Sam is an alumnus I believe. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, Lar. This is very much my opinion; I have no idea what any other member of arbcom-l thinks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is merit in unblocking on the basis that we (the community) may have got it wrong, because we can always reblock if we later determine that we were wrong about being wrong - we were right but perhaps for the wrong reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analysis, Sam. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam, this is greatly appreciated. Thank you. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If he resumes editing Wikipedia, many people are going to emotionally experience first hand why the Athenian community finally told Socrates he had to leave one way or the other. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would bet on it.

So that is why, since we now know of a few areas in which Moulton has been unable or unwilling to contribute productively, we try to find some areas in which Moulton can potentially contribute productively. Just as we do here conventionally with hundreds if not thousands of similar problem editors. What do we do? We topic ban them. And we direct them to other places on the wiki to learn the principles of Wikipedia and to try to contribute.

In Moulton's case, this is what was requested in the RfC. This is what I have maintained personally for a long time and do suggest currently. And for those who are so loud and aggressive here on this topic, why do they not take Moulton into their own editing areas, and under their wing, and show him how Wikipedia works and why we have the principles we do, like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, which are the principles Moulton frantically wants to scrap or ignore. If you can turn Moulton into a productive editor on your part of the project, more power to you. I already tried. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Next!-Filll (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To Sam: If all Moulton wanted was a statement that "due process wasn't afforded", he already has that: "there is no due process on Wikipedia"... (note that this was a quote of what I said back on March 20, which says what I've been saying here all along... I've been consistent the whole time) If there isn't any in the general case, then there wasn't any in his case. That comment of mine was meant to be in the context of what Wikipedia is not... it's not a government, not a system of justice, not something that is designed first and foremost to be fair... it's a project to produce something. We don't necessarily need due process, it's not necessarily relevant to projects. We need effective remedies that move the project forward. Which is for the most part what we get.

To Fill:I'll gladly take Moulton under my wing, if he first committed to work within our policies and guidelines, and I'd reblock him myself if he strayed and became a disruptive influence again. As to a topic ban, we've used it before. I'd support one to be reevaluated after some time. But this is all hypothetical, Moulton has made no such committment and I don't think he will. If he gets unblocked symbolically, without such committment, and then starts editing in ways not compatible with our ways, I'll block him myself. If I could beat everyone else to it. I think Sam's statement: What it important here is that the action taken was not wholly appropriate: that is indicative of the process being wrong. I don't know who Moulton would like to make this statement: I for one am happy to say "no, we didn't get this one quite right". is spot on (and I'd like to see more people acknowledging that the fault is not entirely in one place, that the block may have been hasty, etc.), but I don't think it will satisfy Moulton. He wants a systemic reexamination of quite a bit of our underlying culture and processes. Even if we agreed that was needed (and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I've advocated for changes, but I'm not sure the basic model is as flawed as he thinks), we don't do that as a precursor condition of unblocking one editor, nor should we. Perhaps at some future date if there are changes, he'll feel the conditions are satisfied, and agree to abide, and come back. I'd like to consider that the door is open here for him to do that. But meanwhile we do have other fish to fry. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to WAS 4.250) And the names of the Athenians who were no longer able to tolerate Socrates are...?

Fully agree that we didn't get this one quite right. A caution, don't know that there was a right way, the context was an accelerating waste of time situation and there's no way such a superior being could be satisfied. On the bright side it's provided plenty of material for a thesis or two on multi user internets collaboration systemic interaction failure and online ethics. Whatever :-/ . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the nuances of Wikipedia dispute resolution, so I won't try. What I can say is that various unretracted statements by Moulton commenting on the involvement of the Discovery Institute with the "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" are erroneous. Moulton has asserted that the list arose as a community effort around 2001 and was only misappropriated by the DI starting in 2006. In fact, the list was conceived, organized, and published as an advertisement in three national periodicals by the DI in late 2001. At this point, it seems doubtful that the one content area that Moulton has demonstrated any enthusiasm for editing could be improved by his apparent level of knowledge there. That, perhaps, is not the point in this discussion, but it seems to me that a good deal of the procedural wrangle that emerged had its origin in the persistence with with Moulton applied his misapprehensions on the topic to Wikipedia editing. While a statement that there has been a shift in Moulton's perceptions with respect to Wikipedia policy would be an absolute essential step (absent, AFAICT, at this point) in a process to re-admit him as an editor, it seems to me that without an acknowledgment that he was quite badly mistaken on the content, too, that the same situation would obtain as it did before. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your insightful comments, Mr. Korn. See, here's the insight we really need - the educated opinion of a former arbitrator and veteran editor. Valtoras (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Moulton disdains WP principles

It might not be obvious to those here why Moulton would be dismissive of the principles of Wikipedia. He is a lifelong research engineer and research scientist and academic. And frankly, although there is some similarity between Wikipedia and academic writing, it is far from identical, particularly in the sciences and engineering.

And I can say this with some authority, since my background and experience is quite similar to Moulton's.

When I first came to Wikipedia, I saw pages and pages of contradictory policy. I didn't read it. It was too long. It was poorly organized. And I was sure I didn't need to waste the time reading irrelevant drivel. Just like Moulton.

When I first encountered WP:NOR, I was stunned. No research? Huh? That is what academics and scientists are always seeking. That is the goal. Original thought. Novel interpretations. New ideas. Innovation. And it is forbidden here? I was stunned and dismayed and confused. I was sure this was a mistake. Just like Moulton.

When I first encountered WP:NPOV, I was shocked. First, the very name seems contradictory. How can something containing all views in proportion to their prominence be neutral; it makes no sense. Then, we are not allowed to advocate for one position or another? Or at least not supposed to? Even Encyclopedia Britannica does that in their articles, written by experts! What on earth? I didn't get it. I could not understand what the reason for this was. Just like Moulton.

The ideas behind WP:RS and WP:V were a little more clear, but still confusing. For example, academics often use personal communication as a reliable source, which is forbidden here on Wikipedia. Some of what is a reasonable source on Wikipedia would be unlikely to be accepted in academia, like the New York Times. After all, reporters are just basically boobs; they are not academics, or research scientists. They get stories wrong. They misquote. They are idiots, right? So I did not understand this either. Just like Moulton.

Even the principle of WP:SYNTH struck me as dumb when I first encountered it. Putting together two or three disparate sources to demonstrate a point is exactly what you are supposed to do and trained to do in academia and research. But you are not supposed to do it here. I was puzzled about WP:SYNTH when I first encountered it. Just like Moulton.

However, I had senior editors here mentor me and explain these principles to me. And after a while, I came to understand why the principles of Wikipedia were what they are. And to realize the wisdom of them. But I was willing to learn. Moulton has had decades of experience in designing and using online environments. He is positive he knows better. He has rejected any effort to coach him or tutor him. After all, why should someone with his experience submit to tutoring by someone who is probably a teenager or an undergraduate ? (or at least, this is probably what he thinks). Moulton has not been interested in learning, at least so far. He is sure he knows better. And maybe he does. But while people have tried to educate him, he was extremely disruptive.

Therefore, it was quite natural that Moulton rejected all the principles Wikipedia operates under. It was to be expected in fact; I did. I understand perfectly. And it is also quite natural that Moulton continues to reject all the principles that Wikipedia operates under. And it is quite natural that Moulton is resistant to learning about Wikipedia principles and accepting them. This is no mystery. I was the same way for a considerable time at first. But I was more submissive and willing to learn, and eventually I did. Moulton has not reached that point yet, and might never. But if Moulton is to learn how to operate in this environment, I would prefer that someone besides me try to train him, in their areas, rather than me and my associates, in the areas in which he has already demonstrated he has difficulty. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think anyone is going to necessarily believe your interpretation of Moulton's refusal to understand NPOV, V, OR, and SYNTH without specific diffs.

As far as I can see, he raised questions about those policies that other people on the mailing list and on the policy talkpages do all the time. See the old Covered Bridge discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I believe there is an RfC which has over 100 diffs. Did you not see it? (2)RR is not particularly credible in these matters given his past performance in interpreting these kinds of policies, IMHO.--Filll (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people have pointed out the problems with those diffs elsewhere on this page, perhaps you didnthearthat.

My credibility, of course, is another matter. I admit that I do tend to admit to being mistaken now and then, but in my estimation that does not necessarily lessen my credibility. You, no doubt, think differently about such admissions. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to read what was claimed about the diffs and the responses. And do you really think that so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes? Check for yourself. Maybe you are suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

As for your credibility, I have seen 3 examples now. And just confirmed a fourth misrepresentation of yours by probing official channels. I won't embarass you by dragging it out here. But... what can I say?--Filll (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the diffs don't back up what they claim to. I don't accuse anyone of deception -- for most of them the mistaken understanding is actually reasonable. A lot of the diffs in that RFC do stand up, but a lot don't. I have addressed this in my statement. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Sam) Official channels? Oh, my. I wonder what. I don't remember claiming to have had lunch with Jimbo, so I hardly think that "official channels" have any information on me. My dear fellow, I've told you before, endless gibes about the "credibility" of all the people who disagree with you over some trifling matter, and dark hints about the possession of damning private information are so tiresome. Nobody really listens beyond a certain point.

"..so many would look at them and miss some huge mistakes..." I believe that is an accurate, if extreme, statement of exactly the concern that most people have expressed. It is an understandable if regrettable consequence of editing in what can become something of an echo chamber. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. This is about Moulton, not about you, and I do not want to belittle you unnecessarily or expose past infelicities.--Filll (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to start a new section on this page with all possible exposure of past infelicities. I look forward to hearing them.

Incidentally, I believe what has caused a small proportion of the concern is the level of belittling considered "necessary" in these section of WP. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and may I draw everyone's attention to "me and my associates in the area..." etc. I note, again, nobody but he and his associates seem to be permitted in that area without being bitten.... someone really needs to do something about that sometime. Relata refero (disp.) 13:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In these areas new editors are welcomed all the time and edit productively. However, it is required that editors learn to abide by the principles of Wikipedia in these areas, as they are in all parts of Wikipedia. Is this a problem?--Filll (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, merely unrecognisable. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll: I think this is an excellent analysis, and as I said before, it highlights the "academic participation problem". I assert both you and Moulton are outliers. You figured the system out, he flamed out. Most academics, I suspect, just give up and go away quietly, or never even try to participate here, based on what they've heard already. That's a guess from anecdotes, rather than something backed up by study data but I think I'm right. That said, I think Relata makes some valid points. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Moulton will never be able to come to terms with the system. I just would prefer someone else do Moulton's training, not me. And not in my area, if possible.--Filll (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In his WR post of 6 May 2008, Moulton refers to his essays which conclude "Wikipedia is a rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy without sufficient responsible supervision to ensure that the chess games produces anything of lasting value to the general public (such as accurate stories that one can rely on). No wonder teachers don't allow their students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source. But Wikipedia does provide an interesting example of a good idea gone awry. And it provides a good example of how a rule-driven system becomes profoundly dysfunctional"[6] and "Not surprisingly, the ethical scholar or journalist would find Wikipedia a bizarre medium in which to craft a high quality article, especially on a controversial subject where competing factions are pushing competing points of view. To survive on Wikipedia, it helps to be mean-spirited, evasive, and allied to a powerful guild. The ethical and scholarly journalist need not apply."[7] "..putting a spotlight on the failings of Wikipedia. That's what the reformers of WR are here for." Has he changed his views? ... dave souza, talk 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) clarify last quote dave souza, talk 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need to do some fact finding. I have asked him some questions at User talk:Moulton#Fact finding mission. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking Wikipedia is ridiculous is not a reason to ban someone. Frankly, I don't think Moulton will ever be a productive editor for Wikipedia. There is, however, an enormous difference between us holding him to be banned and him deciding that Wikipedia's systems are not good enough to merit his editing. Everything I have seen tells me that Moulton is a person of very high integrity; his issues come from having different philosophical ideas about how the encyclopaedia should be run. We don't, however, ban for the opinions people hold. Also, be careful lumping every critic of Wikipedia with the worst. There are many who are against the site on not unreasonable grounds and who don't carry out vicious personal campaigns. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton was not banned or blocked because he thought Wikipedia is ridiculous. I find many features of Wikipedia ridiculous, as I have stated repeatedly, and am working with others to try to change these aspects.

What happened to Moulton was that he was extremely disruptive and a net negative to the project. And he was disruptive and a net negative because he did not want to follow Wikipedia principles and policies and conventions. It was not that he was not told of these principles and policies and conventions. He was told what these are and instructed how to reach his goals within the system over and over and over. And he dismissed that approach, thinking he knew better, and became a disruptive element, unable to work constructively and productively with others in a consensus-driven framework. And that is what lead to him being blocked/banned.

Not that he "lied". Not that he had any particular view on some ideological issue. Not that he was not part of a clique or a cabal. Not that he was an academic. Not because he wants to change Wikipedia. Not for any of the myriad and sundry reasons I have seen posted to this thread. No, it was for something far more basic and far more fundamental and far more crucial. We have a way of doing things, and he did not want to do it that way, and did not want to follow advice. --Filll (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that was the reason he was blocked. It is, however, the reason a lot of people are advocating that he remain blocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason? Because he's academic? Part of a cabal? Ideology? "IT" is only of value when it refers to a specific antecedent. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

tl;dr. Can someone who's not part of the supposed "ID clique" summarise what exactly Moulton did to get banned? I know I'm going to come under fire for even using the phrase, but I have seen a bit of banding together from some of people opposing Moultion, and I (and I suppose many others) would like a true neutral summary. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I am part of the purported clique, let me try:

• neutral summaries do not exist
• he didn't follow the rules and just fought instead--Filll (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral summaries can exist. Someone can just read the discussions leading to the banning and make a summary based on the reasons and such. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re neutral, see Rashomon effect. I gave my summary. --Filll (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, POV-pushing on a couple of BLPs (arguing that the presentation of facts related to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism was inaccurate and biased). He undoubtedly did have a point; however, he did not edit according to the standards we should expect. He did not conform, especially, to WP:V or WP:NOR. Whether this merited the ban it got is questionable. If you want to comment usefully on the matter, can I suggest you at least read the RFC (with care -- not all the claims it makes are substantiated) and my analysis above. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

More like he "had" a WP:POINT, and took every opportunity to disrupt WP. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's your view, yes. It's not necessarily universally shared, or even where perceived to be correct as far as it goes, may not be perceived to tell the whole story. I sense that we're not developing new ideas here, though. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it not necessarily universally shared. Just by 18 of the 19 who encountered him and participated in the RfC. But that is not universal.--Filll (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Call the question

We have talked about this for a while. I'd like to suggest that maybe we should look for a consensus here, explicitly. Sam Korn has suggested an unblock, with limitations and restrictions. How do we feel about that? (keeping in mind that it's likely that Moulton won't actually edit much if at all after he's unblocked, if we go by what he's said). Is there a clear consensus that the original outcome was correct, Sam's analysis was wrong? Or is there a consensus that maybe it was incorrect but there's no point in unblocking as it would likely have no practical effect? Or is there a consensus that maybe we should unblock to correct the bad outcome? Or something else? Please note, I'm suggesting a consensus check, not more discussion of an open ended nature... ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(bump) I think this needs wider input before any change from the status quo would be appropriate. At this point I think less folk have commented here than did in the RfC... ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What's going to happen is that, since there is the group of editors and admins who have dealt with Moulton in the past who do not wish to see him unblocked, especially without any statement from him about his past behavior that gives a hope for a new future AND a group of editors and admins who have less actual on WP dealings with Moulton but have listened to him give his skewed version of the story on WR for the past few months, there will be a wheel war if he is unblocked and everyone will become even more embittered. Since WP doesn't do symbolic unblocks and he shows no sign of changing, we are left right at the same place. Moulton stays blocked, he continues his campaign on WR for whatever grandiose change he advocates, and we just move on. And, frankly speaking, thats probably what is best for everyone involved. Baegis (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, if there is a consensus to remain blocked, you won't see me unblocking, and I don't suspect you'll see anyone else doing so either. On the other hand if there is a consensus to unblock, if I read you right, you are saying that there is some group of editors with long experience who would go against consensus and wheel war. I'm not seeing any such group, except for those that were at the start, the ID members... Am I understanding what you are saying rightly? I hope that I'm misunderstanding you. I'd strongly recommend against wheel warring to reblock, which seems to be what you're suggesting might happen. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll break it down real simple like for you Lar. Let's just see if I have this right. You want to unblock an editor who has not made a net positive contribution, an editor who has shown a clear disdain for and attacked several members of ID Wikiproject, and an editor who has not made a single statement than can be construed that he will change for the betterment of this project. When in the hell has someone ever been unblocked when they haven't even acknowledged that their behavior needs to change in order for them to be a contributor here? You seem to gloss over that point. But please continue to talk to Moulton on WR, as opposed to his talk page which is currently open for editing. Double trouble! So, no, he should not be unblocked. Nothing should change and everyone should just step away because this entire discussion is nothing but a farce. You already decided to unblock him long before anything was decided. That's been clear. But please, continue to ignore the advice of the people who actually dealt with Moulton before in favor of him telling his side of the story. Next time I get into any sort of wiki trouble, I am going to use the scorned academic route to get out of it. It seems a very effective method. Baegis (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about who it was you thought likely to wheel war... that seems a rather important point. You also give the appearance that haven't been reading what I've been saying very closely, since you did not acknowledge that I said from the start that I wasn't in favour of unblocking to make a symbolic point, and that I don't see where Moulton has acknowledged that he has to edit within our norms or not at all, so therefore I'm not in favour at this time, other than to leave the door open. What I did say was that IF he was unblocked, I'd keep an eye on him, take him under my wing as it were, and reblock him at the first sign that he was coloring outside the lines. I agree with Sam (an outside observer who came in after the fact to do a dispassionate analysis...) Moulton was not entirely at fault here. That's not the same as saying he's blameless. If this binary yes/no assertion style (rather than acknowledging there are shades of gray here) is the quality of the argument put forward by ID regulars (I've seen it now from you, from Filll, from Jim62sch...) I can see why people have concerns. Again, who do you think is likely to wheel war? ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone will wheel war, but I would think that the admins who have actually worked with Moulton will be very displeased to see such a move especially when the consensus on this will never be reached for an unblock. You are the one who keeps bringing up the symbolic nature of such an unblock. I am fairly certain that one could entertain the notion that the undertow already made the symbolic unblock and that just worked out super for everyone. You do keep ignoring the issue of his previous behavior through the classic "yeah, but..." line of reasoning. "He was disruptive...yeah, but it wasn't his fault." "He showed no concern for following policy...yeah, but he was just advocating for change." etc. The shades of gray are minimal at best. If Moulton really wanted an unblock, he would have asked for one at ArbCom. Since he has already said that if unblocked he will make an edit similar to Krimpets, ie plow right back into the same disaster he started last year, I really don't understand why you think this is a good idea. And with regards to the line of reasoning used by the "ID regulars" perhaps it is because we have actually dealt with him and we hold our particular thoughts. Just an idea. So no, he should never be unblocked until he makes a statement that shows hope for the future. Even then, I would have reservations. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sam - the last three paragraphs of his analysis I found to be particularly clear (and concise). Privatemusings (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam's analysis might be clear and concise. It is just inaccurate. But feel free to unleash a destructive force on your own project, if you feel so inclined. Just remember I warned you.

I see post after post from editors who have no experience edting with Moulton and who have not reviewed his record, or even the little bit of his record in the RfC. But they would do not seem to care about all the danger signals, or just want to ignore them. It is an interesting study in human dynamics alright.--Filll (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So there's absolutely no chance that anyone other than Moulton had the slightest bit of culpability, or could have done anything even the slightest bit differently? That's what I am hearing you saying, over and over. It's fascinating how every time anyone turns any attention to anything surrounding this, it always comes back to how Moulton is completely in the wrong.

Fiddlesticks. No one of us is perfect and I suspect the members of the ID project are no exceptions to that principle, despite their PR. Again, I don't expect anything to actually happen if Moulton is unblocked, despite repeated discussion, because he's continued to indicate he won't edit here the way things currently are construed. But if he gets too far out of the lines we color within, I expect him to last about 5 edits before reblocking happens. Maybe 6. Sorry for replying but your statement wasn't a clear "I favour outcome X" sort of thing that we would use during a consensus check. Do you have such a statement? ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am astounded at this Lar. Perhaps you missed Dave souza's acknowledgement and Baegis' comment and others that "mistakes were made" on all sides. Why would you expect that this would not be true? We are human, and just trying to do the best we can. But since this seems to be an extremely important issue for you, I have made a short list of what I believe the mistakes on "my side" of this issue are here. I do not think you will learn anything new particularly, since most of this is sort of obvious or has been said before in different ways, but since you keep bringing it up over and over (for what purpose, I cannot quite imagine), there it is. Enjoy.--Filll (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• unblock per Sam's guidelines - I would rather see sam's analysis PROVEN incorrect. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've expressed my opinion above; to sum up, I think that unblocking a user disinterested in Wikipedia's core policies who has had absolutely zero evident change of heart and carries a chip on his shoulder over his perceived mistreatment is guaranteed to be unproductive. The block is not a comment on Moulton's personal integrity, value as a human being, or role in the cosmic soap opera. It's just a determination that his participation is unlikely to be a good fit for this particular website, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that conjecture. But I'm one person and, quite possibly, a member of the ID clique (no, I'm not part of the WikiProject and I've never edited an ID-related article to the best of my memory, but since when has that stopped someone from being labeled as part of a clique?). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if there was a strong feeling that one was warranted, nor would I wheel-war about it (that hopefully goes without saying). The only thing I ask is that the folks to whom he's an abstract cause at the moment help deal with him when he becomes an active editor. I appreciate Lar's offer in this regard, and I'd encourage as many experienced eyes on the situation as possible if he's unblocked, since much of the concern over the initial handling revolves around the limited response to the RfC, AN/I, etc etc. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree wtih Sam K here, and I've found myself disappointed about the actions/behavior of a group of editors I had expected more from here. SirFozzie (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "group of editors" you mean, is it those who've tried working with Moulton? Stereotyping editors as "groups" is not a good idea. .. dave souza, talk 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking On the basis that Sam's proposal is "unblocking with a strict prohibition from editing in areas concerned with the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We should, as a community, be prepared to say "we would like to see you editing productively"," then I'm willing so see it would be possible to consider unblocking on these conditions with close and effective monitoring. Moulton is not disinterested about policy, he appears passionately committed to changing BLP so that information from reputable sources is overridden by personal anecdote and speculation about improbable potential harm. Expect extended and tendentious discussions in that area, and care should be taken to ensure that these views do not unduly override community consensus. ... dave souza, talk 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Amended after reading User:Filll/Moultonunblock which refreshed my memory. Any unblocking is likely to lead to grief as well as being an enormous waste of time . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Advise against unblocking/unbanning until Moulton at least expresses an interest to play by the rules here, no matter how ridiculous he perceives the rules to be or how how ridiculous the rules actually are. As I have stated repeatedly, if you absolutely must unblock/unban Moulton, then at least be prudent enough to topic ban him from the areas and articles on which he produced nothing but disruption. If he has something to contribute, it is not in these areas in which he has no expertise and potential conflicts of interest. Direct him to contribute in areas in which he has expertise, if his expertise is so important to have on Wikipedia. Otherwise, the argument to remove his restrictions makes no sense. A more extensive discussion of my position and experiences is at User:Filll/Moultonunblock.--Filll (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• MU This is a more complex question than whether or not Moulton should be unblocked. I think any admin considering this question should instead consider the following sequence of questions:

1. If unblocked, do you feel strongly enough about this that you would wheel war to re-block Moulton?
2. Are you prepared to mentor Moulton and if so (see my comments at his RfC) do you think he would respect your opinion?
3. In the event that Moulton is unblocked and in your opinion his contributions are disruptive, would you be prepared to block him unilaterally, rather than seek consensus?
4. If (in the above situation) no consensus can be determined, would you consent to Moulton being re-blocked or would you unblock him again?

In my opinion, we need zero admins to answer yes to Q1, one or more to Q2, zero to Q3, and zero answering "wheel war" to Q4. Unless we can get consensus for all that, we're just stirring up a big ol pot of wikidrama. Just my 2p SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• A) To answer the questions Lar posed: I don't feel strongly about Sam's proposal, but would like to see it given a try. I strongly believe that the original outcome was incorrect. I predict that unblocking will anger the participants of the Intelligent Design wikiproject - but even talking about it appears to have already angered them - and I make no prediction as to the other practical outcomes of unblocking. B) To answer SheffieldSteel's questions: 1) I might unblock myself, I certainly won't wheel war to reblock. 2) If Moulton actively seeks my advice, I'll be glad to give it, as I would for any other editor. Having never discussed anything with him, I don't know if he respects my opinion. 3) If I had been the one to unblock him, I'd be willing to reblock. If I'm not the one to unblock him, I'm not likely to reblock him. 4) I believe that if there is a discussion, we need consensus to block a user or keep them blocked - however, you'll note that I haven't yet unblocked Moulton from this discussion. GRBerry 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I am not angry. And I doubt if anyone else is angry in the ID Wikiproject. It might even work out fine, but it is a bit disconcerting to see someone so sure of their beliefs based on complete avoidance of the available information. But be my guest. This is a fascinating example of human dynamics. [8]--Filll (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll probably help mentor (probably, 1 open issue). I proposed to Moulton that it might be useful to edit in an uncontentious area first 'till he gets his sea legs. He has agreed, and he will be acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I think that this would cover most of the concerns above, for now. I'm still waiting for word back from 1 editor who I hope will help out as well, before I commit. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  Mentoring: I can commit to mentoring. I have asked an editor whom Moulton trusts to help Moulton get started on some non-controversial articles (especially at first). Later we can try to expand the range, but in this way, I don't think much can go wrong. :-) Moulton has also agreed to this arrangement. Remember that Moulton only had 2 weeks on wikipedia before. We can give him a chance to work in a safe area, and he can improve his understanding of how wikipedia works in practice in places where folks aren't writing BLP's about his friends (which tends to be a rather nasty sticking point, you know :-P ). If he doesn't like it, we can all part as good friends. For the paranoid among you, Lar will be watching too, as will several other people. AND I know where to find Moulton IRL, that's always a good motivator <innocent look> --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (Eh? What were you thinking? I'm totally going to use that address to send him a nice cool beer of his choice, when he hits FA or GA, of course!)

• Support unblocking I frequently am limited as to how much time I have to edit, but I'm also willing to help Moulton, as I did before his block. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see any point in unblocking Moulton. Is there any indication that he plans to abide by policy or contribute to the project in a constructive way? Kim Bruning has offered to mentor him. I have more than three years of experience observing Kim's "mentoring" and "mediation". Kim's intervention usually precipitates a worsening of the situation (e.g., in the Picard article, where Kim's intervention sparked another day or two of heated debate, after which I posted the solution I was working on when he intervened...and which everyone accepted). And he tends not to follow through with his promises of mentoring. Promises of mentoring or mediation from Kim are, at best, hollow. And since Kim campaigned on IRC to have me blocked because I was "behind Wikipedia Review" a year or two ago...I have absolutely no cause to trust Kim. There are actually few people I have less cause to trust. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So, to clarify - I'd like to see some commitment by Moulton to abide by our rules and policies, and I would like to see a credible mentor. Guettarda (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been tracking me for 3 years? That's interesting, a lot of things I do are not very visible. The "intervention" you mention was just a single post on the talk page. That wasn't actually the intervention I did on the Rosalind Picard article. What I did was that I invited a skilled FA-level editor to come and help me, and to talk between several people. The result was a large amount of new text (with exception of the section on faith) , thereby reducing WP:UNDUE weight in the article, simply by adding a lot more to the *rest* of it. It would have been hilarious if we had gotten the page up to good or featured quality even while people were edit warring on the single section, but unfortunately someone ended up protecting the page.

I'm not sure you can lay the heated debate on my shoulders by the way. Heated debating tends to require some level of voluntary participation. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what trouble Guettarda and Kim Bruning might have had. However, I did observe the recent situation at Picard's talk page. It was clear to me that Bruning's "intervention" with one post, imprudently worded and located, did destroy a developing consensus and lead to considerably more conflict. It was the exact opposite of what a mediation is supposed to do. I have told Bruning this before. It is also true that Bruning has apparently recruited User:Ottava Rima to work with Moulton. Ottava Rima has introduced some of the material finally produced by Moulton, some 10 months after it was first requested (and repeatedly requested since that time, to no avail), into the main body of the Picard biography, to widespread approval of all sides. I do not know Ottava Rima, and I do not want to rely on assorted rumors that many tell me, but I am a bit skeptical of his ability to "supervise" and educate Moulton, given (1) Moulton's current stance on the rules under which Wikipedia operates and writes its articles, and (2) given Ottava rima's own history here (not to say people cannot reform themselves and do not deserve a second chance). My best prediction for this right now, knowing what I know from all sides, is that this action has a high probability of producing considerable unproductive conflict. On the other hand, I could be wrong, and in any case it will be an interesting experiment in human dynamics and the ways in which Wikipedia can malfunction.--Filll (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I sort of Firewalled Ottava Rima and Moulton from each other so far (to prevent either party from being accused of meatpuppetry, etc). But yeah, somehow when they cooperate they do tend to get positive results.

Now as to people who decide to get themselves into a kerfluffel over a single section, especially when they're supposed to be experienced wikipedians. Hmph, the less said the better.

Is Lar a credible mentor to the both of you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "destroying a developing consensus"

Filll, you keep saying things in these terms, as if having a consensus - any consensus at all - is more important than having a sourced, verifiable, and most importantly of all NPOV article. And that's ignoring that if a consensus is so fragile that one person can "destroy" it, it never really was a consensus in the first place. --Random832 (contribs) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I take umbrage at this comment for the following reasons: (1) I do not believe you are even aware of the situation we are discussing (2) I disagree in the strongest possible terms that I have repeatedly advocated following WP:CON over WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please provide diffs if you want to make such accusations. (3) I do not believe you have sufficient experience on Wikipedia to weigh in on such matters. (4) Your opinion is at the odds with those of several other experienced Wikipedians. I will thank you to try to WP:AGF and stop your semi-veiled attacks on me. Do you think that might be possible for you? Thank you.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, Random's first edit with his current account was on January 13, 2004 and he has edited since in some of the more drama-prone sections of WP. I dare say the rest of what you say is as accurate as that implies. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Filll should probably reread the consensus policy. Consensus does not lock an article into its current state, and challenging consensus, even a "fragile" one, is not against policy. Stop lawyering by selectively choosing sections of policy to cite at people, Filll. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course consensus does not lock an article into its current state. Where did I ever state that? (diffs please) Consensus changes all the time of course. Of course challenging consensus is permitted. Who said it was not? (diffs please) There are consequences of challenging consensus of course; it can trigger a dispute that can rage for hours, or days, or weeks, or months, or years. And it can lead to all kinds of other problems, incuding preventing the editing of the article, which is somewhat counterproductive, as it was in the Picard case. Also, the consensus finally reached in the Picard case was not much different than what was forming a day or two earlier, and then was disrupted, or what had existed on the page for months and months. So what really was the point? Just another chance for unproductive talk page warfare I guess. What fun! And what parts of policy am I misquoting or selectively quoting? Please tell me so I can stop misrepresenting the policy. As before, diffs please.--Filll (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Without even going to where you have said similarly on other pages: [9] [10]

You have repeatedly described "destroying consensus" as reflecting badly on editors. It does not. As for causing "talk page warfare," it is not a person's fault for that if they brought valid concerns. If you considered the talk page arguments so unproductive, perhaps you should re-examine your part in them, and how you might make future arguments more productive. Speaking of unproductive arguments, this one has been wandering into that territory as well, so, having said my piece, I will now disengage. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are engaging in a clearly unproductive argument and it is good of you to notice that. Even Bruning himself noted in the Picard talk page thread that he wanted to understand how his actions had caused such an undesired end. It happens and I will not vilify anyone for such a thing, as you seem to want to claim I am doing. I am afraid your diffs do not show what I had asked for, so I am underwhelmed by the seeming credibility gap here. As for the claim that editors who bring "concerns" that cause days and weeks of talk page warfare that ends with the same result that was there at the beginning, I am not sure that in that case I would classify them as "valid concerns". But you can do as you like. By the way, if the concerns were so valid, why was the goal to discard the text you yourself had written and agreed to some months earlier? If they were so valid, why were they dismissed by the overwhelming consensus? Hmmm...--Filll (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked questions, I'll give you a short answer: Just because I agreed to something previously doesn't mean I consider it a permanent solution. In addition, characterizing me as completely satisfied with the text at the time is quite a misrepresentation. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll the idea that those who came with BLP concerns to Talk:Rosalind Picard "caused" the talk page warefare is a convenient inaccuracy. Quick recap: 1) Several uninvolved editors came to the talk page because of a concern that the existing language was a BLP violation (most of these editors were pretty much "uninvolved" with ID entries generally, with this particular entry, and/or with each other). 2) Various members of the ID WikiProject very quickly upped the ante suggesting and supporting an alternative wording that even more strongly supported the claim that was at the heart of the BLP concern and to boot was (and remains) unverifiable through reliable sources. 3) After hours wasted in heated argument, a compromise was suggested and agreed upon that was and is notably similar to the original language, but for a few minor tweaks, and a significant amount of contextual information surrounding it that clarifies the BLP concern. A substantial amount, if not most, of the talk page "warfare" was in direct relation to the more extreme afore mentioned language authored by KillerChihuahua and backed by you (Filll), Odd Nature, Dave Souza and later Merzul. At the time of the compromise I expressed feelings of being "had", because of the ease at which you all dropped your, now apparently red herring argument, for the "not too different from the original" compromise version. It is without doubt that this red herring, and the unwavering support it garnered from you, share at least half the blame here (though in my mind they are much more culpable). Anyone interested in seeing this detailed but not wishing to wade through the archives of the entry talk page please refer to User_talk:Filll#Glad_to_be_of_service and particularly to User_talk:Filll#Response. Why on earth does someone who participates so causally in creating an undesirable condition go around accusing others of doing so?PelleSmith (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course if you were allowed to do whatever you wanted, there would be no disputes. Well duh. But that is not how Wikipedia works, is it? You think I get to do whatever I want? Guess again. Lots of my suggestions have been dismissed. Lots of my writing has disappeared into the bit bucket.--Filll (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Only 400 mainspace edits per year over the duration. And 100 mainspace edits per month since he started being more active in January 2007. Look at the ratio of mainspace edits to AN and AN/I edits and compare it to other editors. About 10,000 total edits in about 4.5 years. Enough said.--Filll (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, Filll, but I think arguing that someone's disagreement with you has no validity because their edit count doesn't reach some arbitrary limit is a bit, well, low. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We do it all the time. How much respect do fresh IPs get or newbies get when they try to lecture others on policy? This is not that different, frankly. But you are free to disagree. Provide me the evidence that those with low edit counts (particularly edit counts devoted to article-building) have a superior knowledge of Wikipedia policy. I would be quite interested to see that.

In any case, if I am not interested in NPOV, or RS, or V, please show me the diffs. I am waiting.--Filll (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting.--Filll (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's going to waste their time on it, Filll. Your behavior so far in this thread has provided enough information. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of working in a collegiate manner towards consensus don't you folks understand? If you like creating wikidrama by upsetting things, don't complain about the drama afterwards. .. dave souza, talk 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, who is that addressed to? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

One might make the same evaluation of your behavior on this and other pages. I would gladly compare mine with yours any day. But I think it is best that I not stoop to such levels.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate, then, that you already have :) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless, Dave, they have reached a consensus that creating teh dramaz is good.  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, Filll might not quite get some of the finer points of wikidiplomacy, it looks like, but as far as I can tell at least he's trying to be honest. That's going a long way already. Be nice! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) That and I recall something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar :-)

[edit] User talk:Moulton

I asked at User talk:Moulton if he was willing to even try to edit appropriately and he would not even say "yes" (he said "mu" meaning that the question is invalid). He should be allowed to edit his user talk page, but he seems determined to play by his own rules; so I do not recommend an unblock. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he may have misread your question. I've asked him to think about it more carefully. I'll give my final recommendation after 23:59 UTC today. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was on a Not The Wikipedia Weekly episode with him, where he talked at greater length about his position. His belief is that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken, with contradictory policies that are impossible to follow and lack of proper due process for those accused of violating them. His response is to make "ultimatums" (ultimata?) that Wikipedia needs to change first before he would even think of participating in it. My advice to him on that show was that he at least admit that his own behavior caused some of the problems (even if he's right about there being some other problems outside himself) and that he agree to attempt to follow the spirit of Wikipedia policies to the best of his ability (even if they can be bizarre and contradictory at times). He didn't seem to be interested in that, however. Thus, although I have sympathy for his side, I think he's unfortunately undermining his own position by refusing to be constructive and cooperative, something that it's possible to do even with people and policies one disagrees with. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, that’s disingenuous to say that he misunderstood the question. Mu is his answer and it obviously struck him as appropriate, even though WAS has spent quite some time trying to help the situation. Can we end this farce and just archive this discussion please? It has taken up far too much time and we are right back to square one. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmph, he misread the question. But in a way that makes me go like Oy Oy Oy! He's definitely of good faith, but otoh not always equally diplomatic. Well 23:59 it is, we'll see then. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Baegisthesock here. This is a pattern with Moulton, as can be seen from the RfC. Over and over editors have tried to help him achieve his goals and educate him about Wikipedia. Me. Hrafn. FeloniousMonk. Ornis. Avb. Kenosis. Dave souza. ZayZayEm. SheffieldSteel. KillerChihuahua. Durova. And now Lar. And WAS 4.250. And Kim Bruning. (I am sure I have left a few out here). And eventually, all realize something is amiss with Moulton's mindset and goals and agenda and attempts to meet his goals and agenda.

Some have invested dozens of hours dealing with Moulton. Some maybe hundreds of hours in this. And the result is the same. Even at "that other site" some are lecturing Moulton that he is going about it the wrong way and has to change his way of thinking.

I have posted a short bit of advice to Moulton here. Otherwise, this is a completely wasteful exercise in futility. And we are just spinning our wheels here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gave my word and I'm going to stay true to it. 23:59 it is :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's response to WAS' questions here and here says it all. This is someone accusing his adversaries of being "ineducable" (or rather, unwilling to accept him as a teacher), while refusing out of hand to be educated himself. All the talk of social contracts and rule-driven systems misses one of the most basic of all unwritten societal norms: when you enter a new social space, you make some effort to observe and understand its norms before telling people how they should be doing things. When you go to someone's house and they ask you to take off your shoes, do you immediately lead them in an interminable round of ostentatious Socratic questioning to educate them on why shoes should remain on feet? If you did, would you be surprised if you were asked to leave that house and not return, even if you were right about the shoes? I think this is the point being made less bluntly by Lar and WAS. This just isn't a good fit. An unblock is going to prove a waste of time, and not just Kim's time (in which case who could object?). MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's too bad really (except for the part about wasting Kim's time :), that would be a win, keep him off the streets and so forth! )... as there are things to learn from and improve on in the original sequence of events, I think. I get along fine with Moulton, I even see where he's coming from about certain things, and we have a cordial relationship. But until and unless something changes, we're at an impasse, he won't be able to successfully edit here. I suggest leaving the talk page open in any case, in case something does change but there's not much more to say. I won't oppose a symbolic unblock but I think we're at no consensus either way right now. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree both about the initial handling and the current impasse. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya but what about the part about keeping Kim off the streets? (or out of back rooms, or whatever :) ) THAT was my key point! ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, talked some more with Moulton. Now I finally get what's up, why couldn't anyone have figured this out months ago? I wish I had more time to work on this. Well, so be it for now. I'd like to keep the door ajar though. I'll chat with some people privately first. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to clue the rest of us in on this one? Back room deals for the unblock of a disruptive editor are a bit questionable. It would be better if the community was at least given some idea of "what's up", even though Moulton has had ample time to clarify the problem. Baegisthesock (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No back room deals from me. You should know me better than that. :-)

I just need advice from people on what would be the wisest thing to propose, possibly I'm out of options. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You know where my email is if you want more input. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We need some sort of Training Wiki or Junior Wiki where people can learn the ropes without getting into too much trouble. This is particularly needed for people like Moulton who have shown some resistance to learning and understanding and following the rules. If they do well, and are productive, with their articles being moved into the mainspace of Wikipedia, then they can be welcomed back.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's actually a rather interesting idea, regardless of the relevance of the suggestion to this case, somewhere to practice that was more persistent than the sandbox might not be bad at all. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well, time to archive

Kim's self imposed deadline has arrived and passed without a move. I move that we archive this and file it in the "so close yet so far" file. I will be bold and archive it in 12 hours unless anyone has serious objections. Moulton's talk page will remain open (from what I gather) but I will remind any and all editors, myself included, to not bait Moulton. If people wish to have discussions with him, thats fine. And Moulton is cautioned against making any posting that could be considered an attack on any editors, especially those of any wiki-project. I do have misgivings about the length of time a harmonious environment will be kept on that page. Baegis (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I advised Moulton to avoid any attacks on other editors on his page after his last message questioning the ethics of the ID project editors. So he is aware of what is minimally expected of him if the talk page is to remain unlocked. Baegis (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for a bit more time. (yes, I know this has dragged on...) Kim and I talked on the phone yesterday about this matter, and I think he might have something brewing that might have bearing. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lar, but I don't really see any grounds for more time. Moulton continues to ignore the calls to make a statement that he will try to edit within policy while also posting all of his talk page messages for comment on WR. I fail to see why, after 8 days of discussion, this should continue any further. Moulton has exhausted his chances. I do apologize to all of the great editors who stuck their neck out to try to help him. You all showed a large outpouring of good faith for willing to undertake this matter. Baegisthesock (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit obscure here about why... let me try to clarify. Sometimes, as much as we might want our "adversary" to say "uncle", they won't say it exactly as we would want it said. But if they're communicating basically what we think is important, it may sometimes not matter if they use the exact words we want. That's what Kim and I were talking about when we talked... If you read for meaning, and strip away the rest, Moulton IS saying he's going to abide, at least under some interpretations. Just not in the explicit form some of us (including myself) would prefer. So I think it is prudent to keep this open a bit longer. ALSO, we still haven't had nearly the level of commentary here that we did on say, the Betacommand thread that was concurrent. Far fewer voices commented here than on his RFC even. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but with comments that clearly show he is not asking to be unblocked, this conversation is over. How can you rectify this with your belief that you are close to any sort of amicable solution to this? I do not care for the fact that there are editors making phone calls and trying to figure how to use any means to get Moulton back here. Show some respect for the other editors and just end this charade. He needs to try to abide by community standards or he remains blocked. There is no go around. He doesn't get a free pass. If you want to continue this elsewhere, thats fine. If you find a solution, fine as long as the community is made aware of the coniditions and is not troubled by them. But this thread on this board has reached the point of being useful. Baegisthesock (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've unarchived the thread. Please don't do this. We're not racing the clock here, and as long as Lar is pursuing something he believes may be fruitful, let's leave this open. We can trust Lar to be reasonable and circumspect here. You're not even making Moulton work very hard to push your buttons. :) Take a cue from Wikipedia Review and just ignore him if you think he's got nothing to offer. De-watchlist his talkpage. If/when Lar and Kim have a proposed solution, I'm confident they'll submit it for comment by the community. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Baegis: There was a move. I made a post prior to the deadline stating that I had talked more with Moulton, and that I had learned of an important factor that hadn't been looked at previously. You then actually responded to that statement. Also, If you look at Moulton's talk page, you'll see he has basically agreed to adhere to the 5 pillars, (with one caveat), also well before the deadline. I still need to address the remaining factor, and I still need to get the solution for the 5 pillars caveat on-wiki. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Further private discussions with Moulton are ongoing and I think there is a significant chance for movement in this matter soon. I could be wrong of course. ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Folks (particularly Lar and Kim), has there been any progress on this? Anthøny 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no benefit in concluding this without a clear statement that Moulton does or does not wish to be unblocked and if he wishes to be unblocked a clear statement that he will or will not try to abide by "how things are done around here". He is blocked. It is up to him to make his intentions clear. Until then, we don't need to make any choices for change. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moulton is asking to be unblocked

Last night, when I was creating a new login for myself on MetaWiki, the registration page invited me to avail myself of the new Global Account Management feature. That sounded sensible, especially if I was going to register also on WikiBooks and/or Wikiversity.

However, I ran into a small technical glitch...

Login unification status

---

From Meta

Your home wiki (listed below) is blocked from editing. Please contact a sysop in this wiki to unblock it. While it is blocked, you cannot merge your accounts.

Home wiki

---

The password and e-mail address set at this wiki will be used for your unified account. You will be able to change which is your home wiki later.

    * en.wikipedia.org (home wiki)

So I would request to be unblocked on the English Wikipedia for the express purpose of availing myself of the Unified Account Management feature so that I may ply my craft, under a unified WikiMedia Login ID, on more collegial and congenial projects (other than the English Wikipedia) sponsored by the WikiMedia Foundation.

Note, also, that I had previously asked you to remove the block which prevents me from creating or editing subpages in my user space here on the English Wikipedia.

Also, please see this item, which raises the issue of which party has the ethical responsibility to undo an unethical act, once it's raised to their attention.

Moulton (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted at User talk:Moulton#Civility As a Tool Against Academic Excellence. I am cross posting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I suggest the conversation take place here. I believe we should AGF and unblock. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - Would the user then be re-blocked following the account unification? A block here does not (yet!) carry over to other wikis, sure, so the user could still edit productively elsewhere while blocked here. I'm all for AGFing and permitting the unblock, but I want to be clear on what is happening and why. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as Moulton understands that that is the reason for the unblock and he is still not (yet) allowed to edit pages here at the English Wikipedia. I think this could go a long way to resolving many of the problems parts of the community are having with Moulton. And if he can show good work editing collaboratively elsewhere, we can be further open to a "full unblock" here (meaning allowing him to edit wherever he pleases). Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He also wants to be able to edit his user subpages. I suggest we unblock and do not reblock unless he actually makes an edit that is deemed troublesome by at least one admin. So if he corrects a spelling on some page we don't block for that. But if he acts up or edits where he has a conflict of interest like he did before then any admin can reblock. He claims he does not wish to edit wikipedia again except for in his user space; and he goes on and on and on and on about ethics; so I doubt he will "pull a fast one". WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't want to edit Wikipedia again, can I ask why he needs to edit in his userspace? That sounds a bit like NOT a webhost etc. Userspace is for users contributing to Wikipedia. I don't have any objections to unblocking him so he can unify his login and work on other projects but I agree with Spartaz that failing consensus to unblock the account should be reblocked once he's completed SUL. Sarah 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that absent to a clear agreement to completely unblock Moulton we cannot leave the account unblocked once SUL has been activated but I really can't see any problem in a temporary unblock to facilitate this request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that, then, I would unblock with the adminition "You are being unblocked exclusively for the purposes of account unification. This process requires no edits to the English Wikipedia, and as such, we request and require that you edit only once, and only to this page, to indicate that you have completed the account unification process, and for no other purpose. You will be reblocked at that time. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. " Under those terms, I have no objection whatsoever. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC) See my further comment below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to treat him like that. He is an honorable even if bothersome person. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that came off as really snarky, which was not my intent. Obviously, Moulton need not be templated with the above; I just wanted to get the terms clear, and didn't intend to force him to sign a contract in order to unify accounts, or anything. As noted, no objection whatsoever. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Thatcher has gone ahead and unblocked. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)