User talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Evidence for Statement by FeloniousMonk

Comments about SlimVirgin
  • Nov 17, 2007. Makes a gratuitous reference on Mongo's RfC to SweetBlueWater, SlimVirgin's supposed sockpuppet: "You might also want to check to see if any of the participating editors here ever used a sock puppet to vote twice in a Featured Article nomination or ever accused another editor of "living in the same state as a banned user." [1]
  • Nov 26, 2007. Attempts to add SlimVirgin to the Durova RFAR [2], and attempts to sign up on the cyberstalking mailing list, [3] while admitting that he hasn't actually been cyberstalked himself, and claiming that on one other than Amorrow has ever cyberstalked anyone on Wikipedia. [4] (Note also his gratuitous dig at MONGO, describing him as an "editor I don't respect.")
  • Nov 27, 2007. Makes another gratuitous reference on the Durova RFAR to SweetBlueWater, SlimVirgin's supposed sockpuppet, along with the statement that she had been "taken to task and discredited". [5]
  • Nov 27, 2007. Claims that he is not harassing SlimVirgin, but rather that the issue is her "unethical behavior," and that the only thing that will stop him from continuing his behavior is if she "apologize ... and promise not to repeat it." [6]
  • Nov 27, 2007. Makes a gratuitous reference to SlimVirgin's supposed "secret mailing list." [7]
  • Nov 29, 2007. Feigns ignorance regarding the issue around Swalwell, Alberta: "Just a question. It isn't explained here why creation of this article is considered trolling if it has benign content? What is it about this geographic location that is so sensitive?" [8]
  • Dec 17, 2007. After SlimVirgin notifies Tim Vickers that he has reverted an article 3 times, and that a further reversion would put him in violation of the 3RR rule, Cla68 responds on Tim's page that "Fortunately for Slim and Crum, tag-teaming isn't, apparently, against policy." [9] He then opens a new section at the AN/I board falsely claiming that SlimVirgin has accused Tim of *violating* 3RR. [10] Tim himself responds that he didn't mind the notification, and that it "wasn't any kind of emergency". [11] Despite this Cla68 encourages other editors to place notices on SlimVirgin's Talk: page regarding this.[12] ArbCom clerk Rlevse points out that SlimVirgin's statement was correct, that she said " if he does it again" he will be in violation. [13] Nevertheless, Cla68 insinuates that SlimVirgin's notification was a "tactic" to try to "'win' the dispute". [14] Tim points out that while he and she have vigorous discussions, they actually "tend to work quite productively together", [15] Newyorkbrad notes that Tim and SlimVirgin have worked out their issues on Talk,[16] and Viridae points out that "3RR warnings are frequently given when soeone has made a third revert."[17] Regardless, Cla68 is not content to let this go; he e-mails Tim insisting he needs to respond again, [18] and claims that SlimVirgin has been attempting to "bully, bait, and belittle" Tim. [19] Tim finally tells Cla68 not to "get back into that drama", which finally seems to convince him to stop. [20]
  • Dec 17, 2007. On the same day as the above, Cla starts editing Animal testing, an article he has never edited before and that SlimVirgin has edited since January 2005. For several weeks, he posts on the talk page in support of anything SlimVirgin is arguing against (see below).
  • Jan 2, 2008. On the IRC RFAR, he claims that SlimVirgin's "embarrassing comments or unethical edits have been admin deleted or oversighted... user talk page histories were incorrectly admin deleted... evidence of wrongful actions have been "courtesy blanked" from public discussion forums".[21]
  • Jan 2, 2008: On the Zeraeph RFAR, he makes a gratuitous reference to the deletion of SlimVirgin's talk page after it was vandalized, insisting it was "a mistake." Also encourages another editor to re-add links to Wikipedia Review, saying: "Just readd it. I'm sure he deleted it by mistake," [22] and "Linking to off-site evidence for an arbcom case isn't against any policy." [23] He subsequently insists that Wikipedia Review does not "routinely harass" editors. [24].
  • Jan 4, 2008. He follows SlimVirgin to the No Original Research policy page, a page he has never edited before or since, but which SlimVirgin has edited since December 2004, and where a number of people (including SlimVirgin) are involved in vigorous debate. There he makes a gratuitous talk page reference to SlimVirgin, [25], then adds the "proposed" tag to the policy page as a WP:POINT. [26]
  • January 18, 2008, and following: He follows SlimVirgin to Talk:Animal testing, an article and talk page he had never edited before and SlimVirgin frequently edits, to argue against whatever position SlimVirgin was supporting, or whichever edits SlimVirgin was making. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] When asked to stop wikistalking SlimVirgin, he writes: "If you think I'm 'wikistalking' you (whatever that really means), I invite you to bring it up on the appropriate forum and we can exhaustively discuss each other's behavior and ethics." [38]
  • Jan 26, 2008. Regarding the blocking of Piperdown by David Gerard, Cla68 states that he would like to "question" SlimVirgin about her "involvement in that whole affair," [39] and in a later comment to another editor he gratuitously refers to SlimVirgin as a "once respected contributor". [40] He then claims a "small clique of editors" have been involved in "protect[ing] a certain POV in the naked short selling article and protecting the bio of an obscure financial journalist," and insists that many "secrets and lies of this issue have been brought to light, there appears to be more to come until the entire, sordid episode is fully exposed" - it's clear he is referring again to SlimVirgin, as he refers back to the previous comment he made where he described SlimVirgin as a "once respected contributor" and insists she defamed him. [41]
  • Feb 7, 2008. Again regarding the Gary Weiss article, he insists that what he pejoratively refers to as "at the time, influential admins" worked "in tandem" with Mantanmoreland "to keep any non-flattering info about the subject out of the article." [42]
  • Feb 13, 2008. He continually posts aggressive challenges on SlimVirgin's talkpage, [43] [44], even though SlimVirgin and others have made it clear that they do not want him posting there: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] He follows this by crossposting entire discussions found on other talk pages to SlimVirgin's Talk page, [50] which is also removed as harassment. [51] He insists he is "[a]sking SlimVirgin to be accountable for her actions," and suggests that "she has no defense" and others are trying to "'protect' her from accountability." [52]
  • Feb 16, 2008. As part of his evidence in the Mantanmoreland case, Cla68 states that SlimVirgin alleged that Cla68 "posted conspiracy theories about the Gary Weiss article on Wikipedia Review." He provides the following diff as evidence:[53] As is clear from the post, SlimVirgin actually wrote that Cla68 commented that "high administrators" were "protecting" the article "based on Wordbomb's conspiracy theories on Wikipedia Review" (emphasis added), and was referring to this comment that Cla68 left on the Talk: page of a WordBomb sockpuppet. It becomes apparent that Cla68 has, in part, been pursuing his vendetta based on an incorrect interpretation of a statement SlimVirgin had made a year and a half ago - that he read

Cla later posted a comment based on Wordbomb's conspiracy theories on Wikipedia Review that "high administrators" were "protecting" the article.

as (the grammatically incorrect)

Cla later posted a comment (based on Wordbomb's conspiracy theories) on Wikipedia Review that "high administrators" were "protecting" the article.

rather than

Cla later posted a comment (based on Wordbomb's conspiracy theories on Wikipedia Review) that "high administrators" were "protecting" the article.

However, the relevant diff, this one makes it clear that SlimVirgin was referring to a comment Cla68 made on Wikipedia itself. Moreover, Cla68 was fully aware of where he had made the "high administrators" comment, and SlimVirgin's concern about it, since she had posted on his Talk: page questioning him about it, and he subsequently claimed to have been "joking" when he said it.[54]
  • Feb 17, 2008. States again that an admin who actively participated in his RFC and RFA "knowingly and mendaciously lied, and has never been held adequately accountable for doing so."[55]
  • Feb 19, 2008. Gives an "implied warning" to SlimVirgin and Crum375 that "this behavior of theirs needs to stop".[56]
  • Feb 28, 2008. States "I agree that SlimVirgin and several other admins handled this issue incredibly ineptly from the beginning and made things worse by trying to cover the whole thing up under layers of vitriol, censorship (BADSITES), retaliation (my RfA), and blocks (Piperdown)."[57]
  • Mar 6, 2008. Regarding the Mantanmoreland case, says "One of the administrators most involved in 2006 has presented some evidence here, but didn't address all of the issues concerning her involvement, such as issues of retaliation and suppression of discussion concerning the issue. I guess another ArbCom case could be opened on that aspect of this issue, and I'm going to consider doing that."[58] Further clarifies that the admin in question is not Durova.[59]
  • Mar 14, 2008. Claims that "evidence was submitted in the ArbCom case that SlimVirgin inappropriately and wrongly blocked WordBomb, and she and David Gerard wrongly retaliated against and attacked editors who appeared to take WordBomb's side," states twice that David's and SlimVirgin's actions were "bad faith," and that SlimVirgin and David's "reputations" had been "destroyed." [60][61]
  • Mar 15, 2008. After a new editor with fewer than 90 edits complains about SlimVirgin on Jimbo's talk page, saying he had "searched on Google for her name" and "found a whole host of information about her controversial tenure as administrator on this site..." and asking "Why is this user still an administrator? " and "given the explosion of non-wikipedia commentary about her, shouldn't there be an objective page HERE about her controversial role on this site?", Cla68 posts a response saying, "I've asked some of the same questions myelf and, like you, haven't received any straight answers," and encourages him to post on SlimVirgin's talk page. [62]
  • Mar 16, 2008. Claims that "Mackan is engaging in appropriate dispute resolution with SlimVirgin and Crum," and then tries to bully Tony Sidaway to "stop harassing" Mackan79. [63] Note, at that time SlimVirgin was not involved in any current disputes with Mackan79 - in fact, they weren't even editing the same articles. Also, at that time Crum375 had been away from Wikipedia for several days, and hadn't interacted with Mackan79 in months, so the claim that Mackan79 was engaged in "appropriate dispute resolution" was entirely spurious - there was no active dispute.
  • Mar 17, 2008. Posts on SlimVirgin's talk page that he must post there in order to "engage in dispute resolution" with her, based on the dispute that Tony had with Mackan79. [64] Subsequently states that SlimVirgin "may or may not have control over what other editors do." [65]
  • Mar 28, 2008. States that the original block of Wordbomb by SlimVirgin was "made in bad faith." [66] Is reprimanded by User:Dmcdevit who states, "I find your accusation of bad faith on the part of the admin who blocked here to be quite unwarranted, and uncivil, in fact." [67]
  • Mar 21, 2008. Sets up a user subpage as an attack page/draft RFC on SlimVirgin. Section headers include "Abuse of administrator privileges", "Personal attacks, retaliation, bullying, and attempts to intimidate", "Bad faith editing", "Lying or other unethical behavior" and "Abusive sockpuppety." [68] He uses provocative edit summaries, such as "Wow," "Unbelievable," ""incredible," and "un-freaking-believable." [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]
  • April 2, 2008. Attempts to change the Harrassment guideline and Blocking policy to exempt people who "point out conflict of interest concerns about another editor". CLa68's intent is obviously to retroactively declare that WordBomb's actions regarding Mantanmoreland were not in violation of policy, and thus SlimVirgin's block was against policy. When objections are raised to his actions, his response is to specifically bring up SlimVirgin, claiming that she "actually supported the COI outing of [Sparkzilla's] real name". [120] Cla68 also makes it clear his attempts to change policy were for the purpose of retroactively invalidating SlimVirgin's block of Wordbomb, stating "Another comment on the invalidity of WordBomb's original block. After researching the policies and the COI Noticeboard and other pages, it's very evident that the outing of editors is allowed in order to prove COI. This is what WordBomb was trying to do. If you'll check the COI Noticeboard, both the current page and the archives, you'll see a lot of outing going on. Again, WordBomb's original block was invalid and made in bad faith."[121] Note again his claim that the block was "made in bad faith". Note also that the Wordbomb was blocked in July 2006, whereas the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, which Cla68 is using as proof for his claims that WordBomb's block violated existing guidelines, was not created until December 27 2006.[122] Note also that the Conflict of Interest guideline itself did not exist as such until October 10-12 2006; before that it was a completely different "Vanity" guideline, which dealt with recognizing and dealing with non-notable or "vanity" BLPs.[123] Another editor expresses "severe doubt" regarding Cla68's "sincerity, motives, purpose, and/or hoped-for outcomes in pursuing this solution-in-search-of-a-problem" and describes his reasoning as "weasel-worded in the extreme."[124]
  • April 2, 2008. In response to repeated suggestions from MONGO that he give up his unhealthy obsession with SlimVirgin and get back to editing articles, Cla68 states "In looking at the editor's editing history, I'm frankly stunned by the amount of condescending, rude behavior towards other editors, POV pushing, bullying, attempts to "get even", and outright lying involving this editor."[125]
  • April 2, 2008: Follows SlimVirgin to a talk-page debate that SV had initiated. [126] at WT:MoS, a talk page SV has edited since 2004, and that Cla68 had never edited before] (neither the project page or talk page).
  • April 2, 2008: Follows SlimVirgin to The Holocaust, [127] a page SV has edited since 2004, and that Cla68 had never edited before (neither the article nor the talk page).
  • April 17, 2008: Is convinced to take his RFC "private" for now, but insists that he wasn't out for revenge, but was trying to solve a "problem": "POV-pushing is a problem. Owning policy pages is a problem. Lying and misuse of admin privileges is a problem." [128]
  • April 24, 2008: Claims the "Gary Weiss issue" "helped destroy the reputations of several formerly prominent administrators".[129]
  • May 13, 2008: Again posts to SlimVirgin's talk page, claiming that an edit summary she used was "misleading"[130], and then immediately re-opens the RFC, claiming that he was "hoping that the behavioral issues had stopped. Unfortunately, however, the POV-pushing still seems to be going on."[131] He also goes and canvasses yet another editor who has been involved in a recent content dispute with SlimVirgin to comment on the RFC.[132] Also removes Phil Sandifer's Outside view which says, among other things "Given the high level of toxicity that has surrounded accusations regarding SlimVirgin in the past, I am skeptical that an RfC is a wise forum for this dispute. To be clear, I make this comment without judgment about SV's actions detailed above, few of which are in situations I am familiar with. (Though the one I am familiar with - her allegedly bad faith tactics on BLP - strikes me as an egregious mischaracterization. While I think that SlimVirgin is dead wrong on a lot of issues surrounding sourcing and verifiability, I have never seen anything that makes me think she acts in bad faith.) Regardless of the merits of the larger complaint, however, I think that this RfC is certain to become a forest fire, and deeply unlikely to produce anything useful. As such, I think it ill-advised." "[133]
  • May 14, 2008: Discovers a dispute SlimVirgin had with an editor two years ago, and adds that as more "evidence" on his RFC,[134] and canvasses that editor to comment as well.[135]
Other bullying and bad faith comments
  • Nov 22, 2007. Attempts to bully User:Mercury, spuriously claiming that he has an "obvious relationship" with Durova and that therefore his use of admin tools in relation to a Talk: page thread is "unethical", and that he will request his "immediate desysopping" if he uses them again.[136] (Note: Durova was the admin who blocked Cla68 on October 20, 2007).
  • Jan 10, 2008. Adds User:Jayjg to the Palestine-Israel case,[137] ostensibly because of a comment Jayjg made that had nothing to do with Palestine-Israel articles, on the Talk: page of an article that had nothing to do with Palestine-Israel articles, to an editor who doesn't edit Palestine-Israel articles. Though Cla68 realizes this "evidence" has nothing whatsoever to do with the case, he insists that "more evidence of problematic behavior by Jayjg can probably be presented on the evidence page once the case formally opens." Also tries to get Jayjg removed from the ArbCom mailing list.[138] When various admins remove Cla68's spurious addition of Jayjg to the case, Cla68 subsequently edit-wars with them to keep Jayjg as a named member of the case.[139] [140] When challenged to produce actual evidence or problematic behavior by Jayjg in relation to these articles, he provides nothing more specific than a link to an RFC discussion on a Talk: page.[141]
  • Feb 6, 2008. Attempts to bully User:Jossi, based on another anti-Wikipedia hatchet piece in The Register, and threatens to "ask[] ArbCom to remove [his] administrator privileges" if he doesn't do what Cla68 wants.[142] Cla68 then adds Jossi to the COI Noticeboard,[143] and further accuses Jossi (without any evidence) of being part of a "tag team" that has "push[ed] a particular POV" and "quashed criticism" on the Prem Rawat article, again threatening "formal action" if Jossi "refuse[s] to correct [his] behavior", without specifying which "behavior" of Jossi's needs to be "corrected".[144] When specifically asked for diffs of the supposed violations of COI,[145] Cla68 fails to provide any, merely asserting that "the article and article talk page and history shows some of the well-known tactics used to push POV: frequent archiving of the discussion threads, tag-team reverts, delaying tactics in discussions on the merits of sources, attacking the supposed motivations of the authors of the sources, etc."[146] When other editors ask for actual diffs of improper behavior,[147] [148] [149] [150] [151] Cla68 again fails to provide any, instead insisting that "If Jossi truly was a neutral edito in the Rawat and associated articles, the articles wouldn't have as much of a skewed POV as they have now because Jossi would have helped fix that. He's been editing Wikipedia for almost three years now (or is it longer) and should know by now how to edit a neutral article. Since it appears that he's either unable or unwilling to edit the Rawat articles neutrally, I again state a formal request that he stay away from all Rawat-related articles."[152] In other words, regardless of the fact that Jossi does not appear to have violated any policies with his edits, he is nevertheless somehow responsible for the edits that all other parties have made to the page, which, in Cla68's opinion, have a "skewed POV".
  • Feb 12, 2008. Claims Jayjg is "heavily involved" in the Gary Weiss "issue", and that he would have insight into oversighting on the article.[153] Later says that he made the claim because he "heard somewhere" that Jayjg had oversighted material from the Gary Weiss page and talk page.[154]
  • Feb 13, 2008. Regarding the Mantanmoreland RFC, tells Georgewilliamherbert to "get a clue".[155]
  • Feb 14, 2008. After JzG comments on the Mantanmoreland RFC, accuses JzG of being part of a "cabalistic mailing list" and threatens to have "ArbCom to scrutinize [JzG's] actions in this affair."[156]
  • Feb 14-17, 2008. Tries to turn the Mantanmoreland RFA into a case about Cla68's own failed RFA.[157] Singles out particular admins for no apparent reason except to pursue his personal vendettas (e.g. SlimVirgin, Crum375 and Jayjg,[158], JzG,[159], Georgewilliamherbert,[160]).
  • Feb 28, 2008. Again tries to stop Jossi from even commenting on Rawat-related talk pages, and assumes Jossi's proposal to limit edit-warring is purely self-serving.[161]
  • Feb 29, 2008. Claims Mantanmoreland was given "inappropriate support from admins", and questions whether the Mantanmoreland case should be restricted in scope and thus not discuss this.[162]
  • Mar 1, 2008. Supports a lowering of the bar for bureaucratship because "We need to keep cliques of bad faith editors from being able to torpedo the RfBs of people they don't approve of."[163]
  • Mar 1-2, 2008. Says that Jimbo e-mailed "a select mailing list" regarding COI issues with the bio of a "certain Canadian journalist", says that "The BLP of said journalist was subsequently edited by some Wikepedia.en administrators, including JoshuaZ and JzG", and asks Jimbo to comment.[164] Then states that had there not been "a trail of edits by assumably mailing list editors like JohuaZ and JzG then there would't be an issue here."[165] Subsequently states that "For the record, I don't believe that JoshuaZ was asked by Jimbo to fiddle with the article"[166] but makes no mention of JzG.
  • Mar 2, 2008. Creates an RFC on JzG.[167]
  • Mar 13, 2008. Claims he has "had to endure" "retaliation from several of [Mantanmoreland's] administrator friends over the past two years."[168]
  • Mar 13, 2008. States that "Until David Gerard apologizes for blocking an entire town in Utah, for improperly blocking Piperdown, and for other personal attacks he threw during this entire sordid episode that he helped propagate, his opinion on the [Mantanmoreland blocking] matter has zero credibility."[169]
  • Mar 15, 2008. Again tries to bully Jossi into staying away from even Rawat talk pages, and discussions, stating "Umm, why is Jossi still allowed to have anything to do with the Prem Rawat articles? This is past ridiculous, please tell him to stay away from them."[170]
  • Mar 24, 2008. Presents "evidence" regarding Jossi in the Prem Rawat case. The vast majority of it has nothing to do with Jossi's behavior on Wikipedia, instead focusing on his actions on Citizendium. The rest states Jossi shouldn't be allowed to even comment on Rawat related Talk: pages because he made two edits to the Rawat article (one in December, one in January) and because Cla68 feels Jossi had once "selectively archived" one paragraph of the Talk: page.[171]
  • Mar 25, 2008. Proposes a number of sanctions against Jossi on the Prem Rawat workshop page, [172] including that he be desysopped, although no one (including Cla68) has presented evidence that Jossi has abused his admin tools.[173]
  • Mar 25, 2008. States that an "an editor might hypothetically try to learn the informal rules for ingratiating themselves into the "ruling clique" of Wikipedia in order to hopefully allow said editor a freer hand to push POV in the subject area that interests him. Said editor might even use the connections that he develops with other influential editors to modify policies and guidelines to fit his bad-faith agenda."[174] (then modifies "the ruling clique" to "any powerful clique"[175] When it becomes clear his references were too oblique for some to understand, he confesses to being "too coy" in his previous comment, and states "Do they abuse functions like redirects to try to hide sourced information they don't approve of?" [176] - referring to this evidence of Matthew Stannard, claiming that Jossi did exactly that.Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence#Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat
  • Mar 28, 2008. User:ChrisO, based on a statement from Richard Landes in the Jerusalem Post that "There's a fight going on right now at Wikipedia about the nature of information accuracy, truth, history, etc", posts on WP:AN/I expressing concern that there might be an organized off-wiki campaign regarding Israel-Palestine issues, and particular noting new editors that have showed up at the Pallywood article. In response Cla68 posts "ChrisO, you might consider posting your comment to Jayjg's talk page to see if he has any comment."[177] Note: Jayjg had not edited the Pallywood article or its Talk: page in the previous 6 months.
  • Apr 2, 2008: Yet another unnecessary comment on a user talk page about Jossi and COI. [178]
  • May 8, 2008: Implicitly threatens on Wikipedia Review to out various editors with the press.[180] [181] Despite requests from several editors to repudiate his implicit threat, his initial responses are similarly menacing, e.g. "If the editors in question correct their behavior, then I'll gladly move on to other issues."[182] "Like I said, if there aren't any more conduct problems (edit warring, canvassing, etc) related to ID articles, then I leave it alone."[183] After five days of posts on his Talk: page from a half dozen editors indicating the inappropriateness of his comments, he finally apologizes "for not choosing my words more carefully."[184]

Viridae

Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_tools/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users

  • 1 Apr 2007: Unprotects April Fools' Day because it was "pre-emptive", after another admin protected it. A third admin had to re-protect two hours later after massive vandalism.[185]
  • 17 Jun 2007: Unprotects Lolcat after JzG protects it.[190]
  • 31 Jul 2007: Undeletes vanity article Liz Cohen, created by banned editor and Wikipedia Review regular User:thekohser/User:MyWikiBiz.[191], and proudly reports back to Kohs on Wikipedia Review that he has undeleted the article. (The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > "JzG (Guy Chapman), How he helps Wikipedia", post #51).
  • 10 Aug 2007: "Courtesy blanks" Arbitration page of WR owner and banned editor User:Internodeuser/User:Zordrac/User:Blissyu2, based on a discussion they have on Wikipedia Review on August 9-10 (The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General discussion > "Courtesy blanking, Is this a new policy?", posts #24-26).[192]
  • 10 Aug 2007: Undeletes JzG's User talk: page.[193]
  • 9 Oct 2007: Unblocks banned pedophilia activist User:Dyskolos and re-blocks for 48 hours,[194] after discussion. Dyskolos is re-banned the next day by Dmcdevit.[195]
  • 18 Oct 2007: Unblocks User:Karnoff, a disruptive sockpuppet of banned sockpuppeter User:Connell66.[196] Karnoff's first edit was to create a user page with a giant swastika,[197] and his second was to ask an editor how he could edit the Adolf Hitler article.
  • 16 Nov 2007: JzG blocks User:Veesicle for posting a "Sockpuppet of WordBomb" template on David Gerard's user page. The incident is posted (for lulz) on Wikipedia Review (The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > "David Gerard, Not that there's anything wrong with that!", post #4) and within minutes Viridae unblocks.[203]
  • 17 Nov 2007: Unblocks editor blocked for a 1RR violation (as imposed by community sanction), claiming that no 1RR violation occured,[204] despite the fact that one obviously had.[205] [206]
  • 13 Dec 2007: Restores comments by banned editor and Wikipedia Review regular Daniel Brandt on a protected page.[208]
  • 25 Jan 2008: Soon after Wikipedia Review notices a block of a WP:SPA sockpuppet by JzG, and comments on it, (The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > MONGO > "RFA/MONGO 2, vote early and often", post #62) Viridae unblocks.[209]

Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment/Wikipedia:Civility

  • 22 Sep 2007: Informs Wikipedia Review that User:Fred Bauder, then a sitting Arbitrator, "is, or is becoming, senile." (folder "Bureaucracy", thread "ARBCOM Badsites, This is what they're saying about us ...", post #110.)
  • 22 Feb 2008: When a Wikipedia Review editor states that JzG is "an utter, utter prick and a shining example of what is wrong with the human race", responds by saying "That made me laugh. Oh and thankyou, that was an unexpected surprise - I'm glad i got made an admin again in time for this".(The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > "The 2008 WP:DICK of Distinction® Awards Pageant, More entertaining than the Oscars!", post #62).

Wikipedia:Harassment#Harassment_and_disruption

  • 1 Apr 2008: "Humorously" posts on WP:AN/I that he has blocked SlimVirgin and Crum375 as sockpuppets, linking back to a Wikipedia Review thread.[211]

Moulton

Conducting a campaign against Wikipedia

...and the Wikipedians who compose WikiProject Intelligent Design. The resulting disruption of Wikipedia includes meatpuppets and proxies recruited and directed by Moulton to edit on his behalf.

  • 28 August 2007 A blog entry at Blogspot about his colleague's Rosalind Picard, Wikipedia bio. In the comments he outs the employer of one Wikipedia editor commenting there: [212]
  • 18 September 2007 Another blog entry at Blogspot about his colleague's Wikipedia bio attacking the editors of "WikiProject Intelligent Design", "Now we are engaged in a great wiki war", etc.: [213]
  • 23 October 2007 Another blog entry at Blogspot, this time repeating the claim that SlimVirgin is connected to "Britain's MI5 and/or the US CIA" in the context of the use of SPAs and sockpuppets: [214] But on 23 May 2008 he claims "I haven't said anything to or about SV, as I've never had occasion to encounter her in the pages of Wikipedia. Her backstory may be of interest to some but it holds no fascination or thrall for me" [215]
  • 24 April 2008 To journalist Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press: "(Moulton): This might not be a suitable Q, but consider it... Does Brian think WP is likely to be sued over defamatory BLPs?": [217] In the context of describing his effort and the disruption it caused at Rosalind Picard and James Tour and their signing of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, this sort of question would appear to be a implied legal threat and inflating the drama, as well as an attempt to spread it to the press.
  • 4 May 2008 User:Krimpet arrives at Rosalind Picard making the exact same edits Moulton advocated: [218]
  • 5 May 2008 "It looks like most of the remaining debate has settled into the bottom of the talk page for Picard's bio. If anyone has any interest in a rebuttal to Filll's misinformation, I suppose I could post it here, but I reckon that would be like pissing into the wind.": [219] 5 May 2008 "My deepest appreciation to Krimpet, Kim Bruning, Ottava Rima, and the many courageous defenders who stood up to the ID Cabal in the talk page discussions." [220]
  • 6 May 2008 On his effort to spread his campaign through the press: "As you know, Durova and Filll eventually became regulars on NTWW, with Durova hosting several sessions, including the recent one with Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press. For both political and technical reasons, I was only able to participate via private text chat with Durova. Nonetheless, I was able to pose germane questions that both Durova and Bergstein agreed were good questions. In view of the technical glitches during the recording, I followed up by E-Mail to Bergstein to invite him to reprise his comments that were lost in the Skypecast technical difficulties. He called me up yesterday, and we spoke by phone for a good hour. In the end, Brian decided not to publish any personal critical commentary of Wikipedia lest it taint his status as an objective reporter on the technology beat. Already, Seth Finkelstein and Cade Metz have had to deal with backlash from WP on that score, and Brian's judgment was that it was not in his best interests as a journalist to editorialize on the subject of his stories. However, he did ask me about my own history with Wikipedia, and I filled him in on the story, as best I was able to narrate it from the perspective of someone inside the story. I also told him about the firestorm that had gotten underway on Picard's BLP with Krimpet's edits of Sunday noon.": [221]
  • 8 May 2008 Another blog entry at Blogspot mentioning that Krimpet, who he claims is an "an uninvolved editor" responded to his call at WikipediaReview for editors at Rosalind Picard: [222]
  • 8 May 2008 Calling for another edit to James Tour: "Somewhere between last December and this week, someone removed from James Tour's BLP his published disclaimer that he is not a proponent of ID. Gone missing from Tour's BLP... On his web page labeled "Evolution/Creation" [223], Tour writes that "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design."":[224] The same day, User:Sxeptomaniac, a participant at Moulton's offsite discussion, makes the called for proxy edit on his behalf adding to James Tour "On his website, he writes that he is not a supporter of intelligent design, describing himself as "sympathetic to the arguments," but also stating that "the scientific proof is not there."":[225]
  • 12 May 2008 Moulton advising meatpuppets on edits on his behalf to scuttle a hard-won consensus:
"The next thing that has to happen is to revise this paragraph...
Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.[21][22] Picard sees DNA as too complex to have originated through "purely random processes" and believes that it shows "the mark of intervention," and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are."[20] Though some of her beliefs are similar, Picard has expressed reservations about the intelligent design movement, saying that it deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She argues that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a..."
The paragraph should be changed to read as follows...
"Picard is one of 103 scientists and academics who signed an untitled statement circulated in academia in 2001, which the Discovery Institute subsequently promoted as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."[21][22] Picard sees DNA as too complex to have originated through "purely random processes" and believes that it shows "the mark of intervention," and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are."[20] Picard says that intelligent design deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She observes that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice," she said.[20]"
can provide the rationale to anyone here who requests it.
By the way, "the media" primarily refers to WP, as edited by the ethically challenged WikiClique on Intelligent Design.
Also, the comparable paragraph in the James Tour BLP also needs to be revised. And there is no need for that ridiculous and misleading heading, either." [226]
  • 12 May 2008 User:PlatanusOccidentalis' first two edits in the Wikipedia's article namespace are to Rosalind Picard and James Tour and match Moulton's requested edits above word-for-word: [227][228]
  • 13 May 2008 PlatanusOccidentalis acknowledging he edited in response to Moulton's call: [229] On 19 May 2008 PlatanusOccidentalis is found to be engaging in abusive sockpuppetry and is blocked: [230] 22 May 2008 Platanus Occidentalis admits to being a sockpuppet of a banned editor:[231]
  • 14 May 2008 "So I went back to look at the Tour and Picard BLPs and saw that an editor named PlatanusOccidentalis had indeed made edits (quickly reverted) based on my suggested improvements here, which I had posted two days ago." [232]
  • 14 May 2008 "They aren't going to be able to remove persistent vandalism until they remove the persistent vandals." [233]
  • 14 May 2008 The undertow unblocks Moulton outside of process: [234] The undertow's actions on behalf of Moulton ("Moulton, I did what I could, and it turned out badly..." deleted comment posted here by The undertow) result in much disruption and his eventual desysoping.
  • 19 May 2008 "Let's get back to Dave Souza, who posts the following ... I've highlighted in red the portion of Dave's thesis that I propose we investigate to see if it's well-grounded in evidence and reasoning ... Kato, would you be kind enough to extract the set of posts on these diversions and create a new thread somewhere in the Lounge where we can comfortably explore these subjects without drowning out the Cla68 Deathwatch?"[235]
  • 21 May 2008 "The very first bio I looked at was an utter travesty. Then I looked at other bios (and related articles) written by the same cabal. They were all unmitigated hatchet jobs."[237]
  • 24 May 2008 Breathless comment on the scope of his case's disruption:"The WP:AN which Giggy started is now 9 days old and 196 KB. Here is the latest comment from someone who is coming in to the discussion for the first time"[238]
  • 25 May 2008 Continuing to call for and direct proxy editing to scuttle an existing consensus: "There remains just two corrections. One is the correction that I had previously suggested in these pages..." Admitting he knew PantanusOccidentalis "As I recall User:PlatanusOccidentalis tried to make that edit and was reverted and rebuffed. Moreover, I now discover via his talk page that he is not a stranger to me, after all." Acknowledging his personal connections to Rosalind Picard"Last night the Picards invited me to dinner ... I asked her if she had yet had a chance to look at the biography since the last major round of edits.":[239]
  • 25 May 2005 Admitting that his recent efforts focusing on Wikipedia are POINTY rather than based on an interest in contributing to the writing of an encyclopedia: "Oh, I have no illusions about being welcomed back with open arms. That's not even a back-burner goal of the "I have a dream" variety. But I'm interested in discovering whether vile miscreants like me have any grudging civil rights in WikiWorld."[240]

Sockpuppetry to evade a ban

  • On 11 September 2007 KillerChihuahua blocked Moulton with an expiry time of indefinite:[241] 18 September 2007 User:18.85.44.145 edits the focus of Moulton's campaign, Rosalind Picard:[242] A WhoIs lookup of the IP shows that 18.85.44.145 is dhcp-44-145.media.mit.edu, the MIT Media Lab: [243] In an e-mail he sent to Wikipedia Administrators he made public Moulton says he is "(User:Moulton) Visiting Scientist MIT Media Lab": [244]

WP:POINT, etc


Responses of other online communities to Moulton

  • International Digest Forum: "More spam from the Kort man -- another reason to have contempt for this formerly interesting place. All it is is a takedown -- all Barry -- and his moron Bela -- all the time. What more can this place be besides Barry Kort harassing us in his unhappy retirement? "[247] "yes, you've been at it for over ten years, too. in fact, you're addicted to it."[248] "My present plan is to attempt to disengage. Barry's obviously reveling in the attention and I'm not willing to play his game. If he posts on topic I plan to respond but I will not participate in or comment publicly upon any inflammatory posts or actions. I did respond until it became evident that Barry was not interested in learning anything or contributing anything other than the advancement of his own grievance and agenda. "[249]
  • Slashdot: Slashdot disabled Moulton's account on or about 6 April 2006 due to a sufficient number of his posts there being flagged by Slashdot users as "Troll" or "Flamebait." [250] Discussed here: "I agree with you that "the system works". It's not an AI that rated you as a troll, it was the readers of slashdot themselves. Real live intelligent human beings voted you off the island! Yes, the Slashdot moderation system works very well, doesn't it?"[251] "Here's how the system works: you told me yourself that your accound was disabled because of all the negative moderation points you got. Obviously it works the way it was designed. ... Barry, everybody agrees that you're a troll, and a flame baiter."[252]
  • Worldcrossings: "Barry, I agree with cduffy that you are a troll. AFTER I read his message, I googled your name, and came up with this post from Bela. I was already 100% sure that you were a troll, before I ever saw Bella's message, so I didn't get that idea from Bella -- he just confirmed what was obvious to me and cduffy and everyone who moderated your posts down so far that you got kicked off slashdot: you have only YOURSELF to blame!"[253] "How did Barry blow it so badly? How many forums has he been banned from this year? ... You have been consistently self-promoting. It was only mid last year when you found yourself getting banned from a half dozen forums at WX" [254]
  • The Well: Moulton developed a reputation for disrupting the community by spending most of his time there trying to promote a notion he envisioned of how the community long after the community rejected his ideas, rather than using the community the way it was enjoyed by the rest of its membership. This pattern of behavior, rambling analysis forced on the community, is the same as that seen at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton that prompted his indef block and seen here: [255]