Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moulton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moot. The originally nominated page has been, quite appropriately, deleted. It would be best if it is not recreated in the format it was then in. If we decide we want to delete the newer, much more simpler page, we should do it from a fresh discussion solely about it. But please let things settle out a bit before even opening such a discussion. GRBerry 13:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The result of the debate was speedy close - I don't have a problem with the current version of the page and it doesn't appear anyone else does - at least, enough to delete it - either. The underlying versions are visible because they are related to a pending Arbitration case. I think nothing more can be accomplished here at this point in time. --Random832 (contribs) 13:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Moulton

Attack page - Content of "evidence" links is blatantly misrepresented. See User:Random832/User:Moulton.

  • speedy delete as an attack page. --Random832 (contribs) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to withdraw my nomination (there are delete votes, but they can also change their votes if they wish and it can be closed) - it has been deleted, but I'm not opposed to it being recreated in the form that simply has an indefblocked tag and links to past discussions. --Random832 (contribs) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I would, though, like to see a consensus reached on whether or not the "evidence" content may be posted anywhere. --Random832 (contribs) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As evidence of past and current misdeeds. This info will be needed for other actions on WP attributable to meat puppets acting at Moulton's behest. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The evidence is full of liesblatant misrepresentation of the content of Moulton's posts to WR. If it's trimmed down to statements of things he actually did with links to him actually doing them, it _might_ be acceptable (however, "evidence" pages have been deleted under G10 before) --Random832 (contribs) 17:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Lies? Really? Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Calling something a "lie" is a comment on the person, not the actions. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Random, ain't you one o dem adminsistraters? Tsk. In other words, you should know better, and should not be involved in things in which you have a personal interest. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I have no more a personal interest than you do. --Random832 (contribs) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least until this current phase of Meat Puppetry and other lobbying by an editor who is not in good standing subsides. We have recently had several efforts to carry out Moulton's wishes, and to unblock Moulton without following proper procedures. This is needed to caution others from acting precipitously in the current situation.--Filll (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, his user page should not be used as a place to make accusations against him. Everyking (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - what misrepresentation? Are you saying that his RFC didn't result in a ban, or that the arbcomm didn't turn down his request for unblocking? Are you saying that he hasn't engaged in a campaign to get people to make his changes for him? Or that he hasn't said that he has contacted the press? Please explain what you see as misrepresentation. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I am saying that ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE of the links to posts by Moulton on WR in fact contains what they are represented as containing. I am not saying that he hasn't engaged in a campaign to get people to make his changes for him, but I have clicked every link and have seen no evidence of such a campaign. That the links are represented as being such evidence is in fact a misrepresentation. --Random832 (contribs) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What about the link to Moulton's RfC? Does it not link to Moulton's RfC? What about the link to Moulton's Arbcomm appeal? Does it not direct the reader to Moulton's Arbcomm appeal? I do not understand.--Filll (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The fact that there are a couple links that go where they say they're going is supposed to somehow invalidate the issue that there are A DOZEN links to posts on WR where he is supposedly "recruiting meatpuppets" and is in fact doing nothing of the sort? It's insidious because "[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" looks so impressive until you actually bother to click the links. --Random832 (contribs) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment No opinion as of right now, but I'm puzzled by Random's claim that the page is "full of lies". Moreoever, G10 is generally used on evidence pages that don't serve a useful purpose or are part of difs someone is in the process of compiling. That said, it may just make sense to have it as a separate page in userspace, especially if its current form is making people uncomfortable. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The same people who are trying to unban Moulton have taken great pains to whitewash the reasons he was banned. His userpage is, like many other banned users' pages, used to document his misdeeds. Raul654 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is utterly unnecessary and is obviously upsetting to the guy. It's mostly speculation from what I can see and serves little purpose to the project here - Alison ❤ 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • serves little purpose to the project here - funny coincidence that this is being put up for deletion at the same time people are trying to get him unbanned. Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Funnier that it's as a result of FM's modification of the page, more like. Things were just fine as they were, IMO. Note also that in this edit to Moulton's talk page a few weeks back, I refer to the word "kindness". We could use a little more of that around here, to be honest. If you wish to have collated evidence on why he's blocked right now, at least let's have the decency to put it somewhere else and maybe link to it, instead of desecrating his tombstone? - Alison ❤ 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • If it were his tombstone -- that is, if we knew he wasn't coming back -- and we wished to show kindness by not rehashing the past, that would be one thing. But it's not. Whitewashing his history here is the first step to getting him unbanned. And this is only made more-relavant by the fact that he's actively recruiting others to do his bidding now that he's banned. Raul654 (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
          • " he's actively recruiting others to do his bidding now that he's banned."[citation needed] --Random832 (contribs) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Just to pick one really obvious example - "I am gratified that, at long last, more responsible and professional admins have become aware of the problem and lent their weight and their good offices to correcting it.... There is much more work to do. The Picard bio was just the tip of the iceberg for me. There is also the similar biography of James Tour, who was also featured in that same NYT story. The same undue weight and coatrack issues apply there, as well." Short of following that up with "Hey Alison, why don't you go make some edits on those articles for me?" (and I'm only using Alison as an example; not because I believe she's done anything untoward) I don't know how much more obvious he could be. Raul654 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) I don't know why you're bringing my name directly into it here, Raul. I've never made an edit for the guy in my life here, nor have I ever been requested to. I don't normally edit BLPs, sticking rather to my chosen topics of pharmacology and Irish-related matters. I don't really know nor care about Rosalind Picard nor the history of the article and I'd rather you refactored that bald accusation - Alison ❤ 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Ok, I see your subsequent edit now ... - Alison ❤ 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
              • (ec)That he's happy about someone's edits does not mean that they made the edits because he told them to. --Random832 (contribs) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Or perhaps we could recognize the perfectly obvious - that after thanking people for all the good work they did for him on the Rosalind Picard article, that he's asking them to go do the same for the James Tour article for him. And lo, suddenly there were a bunch of edits to an otherwise-dormant article. But I suppose that's just a coincidence. Raul654 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Yes, we could resort to conspiracy theories as you suggest. Or we could go with the simpler explanation, being that there were real BLP problems with the articles in the first place, he pointed them out, and other people used their own judgement. --Random832 (contribs) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Good show, Raul. Apparently people are incapable of making statements that have anything less than complete literality. Or perhaps they are, and you're just smearing this with a massive assumption of bad faith. Achromatic (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, lovely, the page is even being used to smear me with the same brush for making a single edit to a BLP that was apparently a favorite of his. Delete this childish nonsense. krimpet✽ 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Raul. We have an active campaign by the editor against Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No evidence has been provided. --Random832 (contribs) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • False. See above, re: "I don't know how much more obvious he could be". Raul654 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No evidence provided that I agree with Raul's reason for keeping the page? What??? Guettarda (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I was _clearly_ talking about the supposed "active campaign against wikipedia", not about your agreement with Raul - don't insult my intelligence. --Random832 (contribs) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A "campaign [...] against Wikipedia"?? How did you reach that conclusion? - Alison ❤ 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If you have the stomach for it, dig through his threads at WR. That isn't the whole of it, of course, but that's a pretty good overview. Guettarda (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - can someone point out to where Moulton is either banned or community banned, please? As I note that another administrator unblocked him earlier today, that would indicate that a community ban is not in place here. Can someone clarify? - Alison ❤ 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Community banned here. And the arbcom tacitly approved it when they rejected a Moulton arbitration case as unnecessary. Raul654 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing that as any evidence of a ban whatsoever. Even the thread title is all wrong, and basically nobody has discussed it. We recently had this exact issue over User:Vintagekits and my original ANI posting over that incident was way stronger than the one cited here. And it wasn't declared a "ban" with a whole lot more editors weighing in on it. Furthermore, tacit approval of anything from ArbCom is insufficient, IMO. I want to see that in writing, please - Alison ❤ 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • An ANI thread saying "I'm blocking this guy for exhausting everyone's patience" is a community ban, even if the title of the thread doesn't explicitely say "I'm community banning this guy". And 6 people chimed in to support, and nobody felt it was worth opposing. Sorry if that's not enough for you, but that's about average for this kind of thing. If there was anything problematic, the arbcom would have heard the case -- or at least made some comment about it. They did not. Therefore, Moulton is community banned. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Community ban means "no admin willing to unblock" - arbcom not opening a case does not constitute an endorsement of the ban, only an acknowledgement that it is outside their jurisdiction. --Random832 (contribs) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
            • A block that no other admin is willing to undo is a de facto ban. Moulton's been blocked for many moons now, and tried quite a few angles to get unblocked, including unblock-en-l, complaining to Mike Godwin, and appealing formally to ArbCom. All of those appeals were turned down, and until now there hasn't been any serious consideration, that I'm aware of, on the part of any admin to unblock him. It's reasonable to call that a ban, but of course if there are now admins seriously willing to unblock him, a new discussion may be in order. This wouldn't be the ideal place for it, though. MastCell Talk 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact keep, no reason to not have a page with a banned tag. I agree that the evidence should be removed however, and have done so myself. naerii - talk
  • Keep User is directing a disruptive meatpuppetry campaign offsite and has been lobbying admins to undo his community indef block, making his userpage the logical place to maintain any relevant evidence. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No he's not, if [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] is all the evidence you have to show for it. --Random832 (contribs) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If anything, his user page is the logical place to let him write a defense. It is not our custom that others can edit our user pages to add accusations; what would happen if I added accusations to your user page, or you added accusations to mine? The custom is that the user gets to decide what goes on the page, and ordinarily you don't get to see the views of their opponents on that page. Everyking (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the community ban is laughable. Six people do not represent the community. This is not customary and is inappropriate for a user page. It's unnecessarily upsetting to the editor. And stop using "community ban" like it means something in this case. It doesn't apply. Lara❤Love 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, I would invite you to study the actual RfC that lead to the "community ban". I think you might find a few more there who considered this situation than just 6.--Filll (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't one of the issues with the community sanction noticeboard the short amount of time some discussions were open before the user was banned? Any thread on ANI is only going to be visible for about 24 hours anyway, and those six users showed up over the course of only three hours. --Random832 (contribs) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, did you happen to inspect the RfC? Did you notice that it was open for a little longer than 3 hours? (September 5, 2007- September 11, 2007) The same was true of the RfAr request I believe.--Filll (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The page should simply indicate that Moulton is banned, because, well, he is. Links to his RfC and the ArbCom appeal are OK but not essential. The page shouldn't be used to present "evidence" against him, especially since he can't respond and he is, after all, already banned. The idea behind a ban is that the user be shown the door firmly but courteously; there's no need to keep kicking him. If there's serious discussion of unbanning him, then the evidence could be presented in the appropriate venue, but his userpage is not that venue. This current revision by Naerii looks fine. Deletion's not the answer, since banned users typically have the "ban" template, at least, on their userpage, and links to ban-related discussions are useful for institutional memory. What we should delete is his talk page, but that's another story. MastCell Talk 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This seems like an eminently sensible compromise to me.--Filll (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This was the status quo up until yesterday, and I'd favor just going back to it. Alison's adjustment to the talk-page protection template made sense as well. MastCell Talk 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll certainly agree to that, as compromise - Alison ❤ 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Mastcell's suggestion is acceptable unless another admin, ignorant of his history, comes along and decides to unblock him on the basis of well-he-can't-really-be-all-that-bad. Raul654 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Right, 'cause admins are well known for unbanning users at the drop of a hat without starting a discussion on a noticeboard first. naerii - talk 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
              • They seem to be in this case. That is why I think at least a link to the RfC and the Arbcomm case, at the bare minimum, is probably prudent. I am willing to consider other options that are more severe, but I would like to see that we avoid a repeat of the performance of the last few days here.--Filll (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • On the RFC, I see you repeatedly using this set of links: [1][2][3] to support an assertion (that Rosalind Picard is in fact anti-evolution and that Moulton knows this to be the case) without making any explanation of how these links support this assertion. You link to a blog post by Moulton as evidence that he in fact supports Intelligent Design himself, without explaining how this supports that assertion. So, I suppose that the quality of evidence that FM posted on the userpage was par for the course. --Random832 (contribs) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's argue the merits of the ban elsewhere. Otherwise this process is going to get hecka unwieldy. MastCell Talk 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough; I wasn't the one to bring it up anyway. --Random832 (contribs) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec)And the support for the summaries that are negative towards Moulton is quite a bit thinner than those at a few other RFCs I could name that have not resulted in sanctions. --Random832 (contribs) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Picard has subsequently clarified her position somewhat, as is noted in her biography here. This was requested repeatedly by myself, by Durova through Moulton, by Kim Bruning through Moulton, and by Chang, the New York Times reporter. Nevertheless, there is considerably more evidence than what was compiled in the RfC, including private emails which I would share with the Arbcomm committee if this is deemed appropriate and necessary. However, I was under the impression that this page was not the page to reargue this RfC. Am I mistaken?--Filll (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just become aware of this discussion. The syntax above is unclear. So for the record, at no time have I requested any information directly from Dr. Picard. Given the history on unrelated matters, I find it rather unsettling to see my name mentioned--in vague terms and without my consent--along with the phrase private e-mails. Moulton contacted me shortly after his indef (via e-mail, which was the only way he could contact me). I opened a noticeboard thread shortly afterward to review his block. Recently I have been in contact with both Moulton and Filll, mainly in conjunction with (and as follow-up to) a Not the Wikipedia Weekly Skypecast. Both have shared their concerns about the present situation with me, and I've tried in a small way to mediate. It's been very disappointing to watch this situation degenerate in spite of those efforts. No one has been at their best lately, and I earnestly ask all sides to take a deep breath and slow down. DurovaCharge! 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain how the original links, by themselves, justified any of your assertions? All I see - both in the version of this page that I nominated to delete and in the RFC, is a lot of "look at the pretty links", and not very much actual justified accusations. --Random832 (contribs) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And there being "more evidence" is immaterial if this "more evidence" is on average the same quality as was typical of the "evidence" I've actually looked at. --Random832 (contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(1)This is not the place to argue this, or reargue this, as has been repeatedly noted (2)Aggressively challenging me in this fashion about a case that is many months old at this point is a bit inappropriate, don't you think? This was not done precipitously, or by just one or two people. This was not done whimsically, or out of some desire for revenge. (3)Why not read a bit about the new RfAr if you are so anxious for reading material?--Filll (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


I decided to be bold and put Mastcell's suggestion into effect. Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And now the undertow has deleted it. People can be so impressively stupid *sigh*. naerii - talk 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I recommend that nobody restores it without a consensus.. we don't need people wheel warring over a user page of all things. naerii - talk 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Too late - that was the 4th delete/undelete action today. Wheel-warring to delete a page under active discussion at MfD is a disappointingly poor administrative decision, but we may as well let this discussion run its course before doing anything else, since there's no fire. MastCell Talk 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What's disappointing is that we were well on our way to reaching a compromise. naerii - talk 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Still can. MastCell Talk 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't do the compromise. I am confused. I don't really know the rules on this sort of thing to be honest. I have to rely on more experienced people, but I think some way to warn people from doing stupid things while this is ongoing is quite reasonable, if it is permitted.--Filll (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
...working on that now. Sit tight plz. Raul654 (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean that we couldn't continue with the compromise, just that it's disappointing that an administrator would ignore the fact that a compromise was in the making and impose his own ideas anyway :P Oh well, I support the compromise option for what it's worth. naerii - talk 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I am sure they will get it all figured out. I am not really even sure of the rules and policies here, so I am good and confused.--Filll (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a relevant policy. Lara❤Love 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The page as it stood didn't violate BLP. naerii - talk 20:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec, same point) That is potentially a relevant rationale for removing the "evidence" against Moulton from his userpage. It's not a rationale for deleting the entire page. A ban/block template on the userpage of a banned/blocked user would not violate any conceivable interpretation of WP:BLP, and it's standard practice for such users. MastCell Talk 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What was the compromise? Can't see it now that the page is deleted. Anyways, we don't need to kick him at length on his userpage with speculative material outside the context of a discussion; all that's necessary is a single link to the most relevant discussion regarding the ban. If that's what the compromise was like, then I support it. - Merzbow (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The compromise was just the banned tag and a link to the RFCs and other discussions, the same as is done on most other banned users userpages, without the 'evidence' section. naerii - talk 21:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine then. - Merzbow (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the compromise as the page was prevously (when Mastcell last touched it in December). But I have a problem with the "Banned" tag, given that there is little or no evidence of a community ban. See my comments above (and I'm sorry, but this MfD seems to have got totally derailed at this point!). Can we at least change it to an indefblock notice while leaving the links as they are? - Alison ❤ 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a battlefield (at least it is not supposed to be one). Act like it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Attempts to make Moulton out to be some kind of bogeyman are ridiculous. Random832 has thoroughly established that the evidence is bogus, and it is instead an attempt to smear a blocked editor, who can not easily defend himself, and any that might be associated with him (as supposed meatpuppets). In addition, it's being used as a way to avoid recognizing that, while his behavior on Wikipedia was a problem, he has had a legitimate complaint. As LaraLove has pointed out repeatedly, he was blocked, and there is no evidence that he is banned by the community. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, use this version instead. It looks neutral enough and is not linking to any "evidence" page. It just has the necessary links for admins to check what caused the banning --Enric Naval (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Then why are you voting to delete it?! Raul654 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm voting to delete the version that existed at the time of the nomination. From other commenters, it seemed to include a link to a page on Random's userspace, which the current version does not have. I reworded my vote to make it clearer --Enric Naval (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant and unfair use of a user's userpage to attack the editor. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: - due to the upcoming RFAr case involving User:The undertow, I intend to restore the userpage deleted revisions without making any modifications/judgments regarding the current page. It will stay the same, but the deleted revisions and edit summaries will be needed as evidence. Noting it here as a courtesy, but it should be non-controversial - Alison ❤ 05:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment This MFD is being advertised offsite. Considering Moulton has been using that site to recruit and direct meatpuppets and the poster of the advertisement has tried to delete the User:Moulton page, care will need to be taken in closing this MFD in order to avoid having the outcome unduly influenced per Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's like socks have given up trying to disguise the fact these days [4]. naerii - talk 10:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.