The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What Is FeloniousMonk Up To Here?, The Well-Templated Cavalier
Moulton
post Wed 14th May 2008, 8:06am
Post #1


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Can someone help me parse this ...

QUOTE(Deletion Log for User:Moulton)
* 05:24, 6 May 2008 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton" ‎ (CAT:TEMP: Temporary userpage deletion: redelete until I find or make the proper template for this)
* 05:23, 6 May 2008 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Moulton" ‎ (3 revisions restored: redelete until I figure out the right template)
* 05:19, 6 May 2008 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Moulton" ‎ (1 revision restored)
* 04:14, 27 February 2008 Mr.Z-man (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton" ‎ (old temporary userpage)
* 22:53, 23 October 2007 ST47 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton" ‎ (Temporary page, too old)

Was he looking for some kind of Scarlet Letter tag or what?

And if so, for what purpose?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Wed 14th May 2008, 3:22pm
Post #2


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Since I posted the above deletion log on the User:Moulton page, a lot more has happened that I haven't quite sorted out.

Yesterday, unbeknownst to me at the time, FeloniousMonk evidently recreated my User Page with all new content.

Between yesterday and this morning, there have been further edits, both by FeloniousMonk and by The_undertow.

There is also some discussion about it all here on the Talk Page for User:The_undertow. As I understand it, both are admins on WP.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 14th May 2008, 3:25pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Wed 14th May 2008, 3:37pm
Post #3


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



Wow. This is especially nasty behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=212353868

QUOTE(User:FeloniousMonk)

Evidence of recruiting, directing meatpuppets to continue campaign from Wikipedia Review

* Example of Moulton's original editing campaign at Rosalind Picard: [1]
* Moulton's article at Wikipedia Review advocating continuing his campaign at Rosalind Picard and James Tour: "So I am disgusted with Wikipedia" April 5th, 2008
* Moulton recruiting meat puppets at Wikipedia Review: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], and so on for 4 more pages...
* Moulton stating he intends to bring the matter to the press: [14]
* A Wikipedia Review editor arrives at Rosalind Picard walking in Moulton's footsteps, making the edits he's advocated: May 4, 2008
* Moulton advising meatpuppets on edits on his behalf to scuttle a hard-won consensus: Wikipedia Review, May 12, 2008
* Brand new user making his first two edits matching Moulton's above requested content word-for-word within hours of Moulton's request: May 12, 2008May 12, 2008 Same, acknowledging he's acted in response to Moulton's call: [15]
* Acknowledgements of directing meatpuppets: [16][17]


So on the encyclopedia anyone can edit, no one can straighten out a BLP in the grips of this clique? Because it interrupts their "hard-won" consensus? Which was only achieved because they banned persons who disagreed with them, on faulty premises?

And anyone who reads anything critical of their behavior elsewhere, who considers their grip on the BLP to be a defamatory disgrace and tries to make amends, is "a meat puppet" to be ignored and campaigned against?

This is truly Orwellian.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Wed 14th May 2008, 3:40pm
Post #4


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



FeloniousMonk is one of the anti-ID people - I'd say he's probably doing this mostly on his own, with Raul654's blessing of course.

Obviously, none of the links to Moulton's "recruiting meatpuppets at Wikipedia Review" contain any content in which he even vaguely suggests that people should actively take up his specific cause on Wikipedia - he's just posting a link to every Moulton post that's tangentially related to evolution vs. ID, under the assumption that people won't click on them.

He probably did more "recruiting" on Skype in one night than he ever did here... Maybe they can ban anyone who's ever used Skype, too?

Lies, lies, lies, yeeaaahhh...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 14th May 2008, 3:44pm
Post #5


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Get A Clue, Moulton —

There Is No Off Switch On The Revenge Machine …

And Now The Governor Is Off, Too …

Jon cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 14th May 2008, 3:45pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Wed 14th May 2008, 3:45pm
Post #6


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 14th May 2008, 11:37am) *
Wow. This is really bizarre behavior.

....

This is truly Orwellian.

It's Kafkaesque and Orwellian.

And also very confusing.

As I understand it, KillerChihuahua executed an indef-block on 9/11, without going for a community ban via the Community Sanction Noticeboard, which (as I understand it) would have brought in the wider community, beyond the WikiClique on Intelligent Design.

What FeloniousMonk put up on my User Page suggests that my status has now changed from indef-blocked to site-ban. Am I reading that correctly? Did my status change? And if so when and how?

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 14th May 2008, 4:46pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Wed 14th May 2008, 4:43pm
Post #7


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I also wonder if what FM put up on User:Moulton amounts to a de facto BLP.

And if so, does it comply with WP:BLP#Non-article_space standards?

QUOTE(WP:BLP Standards)
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

I don't think there is any question that what FM posted there is both contentious and questionable. I'll leave it to others to adjudge whether the sources which FM is relying on are considered WP:RS by Wikipedia standards.

Oh, and by the way, the last time I checked, I was still an easily identifiable living person residing on Planet Earth.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 14th May 2008, 4:44pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
UseOnceAndDestroy
post Wed 14th May 2008, 5:47pm
Post #8


Über Member
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri 7th Dec 2007, 3:43pm
Member No.: 4,073



QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 5:43pm) *

I also wonder if what FM put up on User:Moulton amounts to a de facto BLP.
Wonder no more - it is. And BLP purely in the negative sense, too - they're trying desperately to create an undesirable consequence for your posting here.

QUOTE

And if so, does it comply with WP:BLP#Non-article_space standards?

Does it matter? Even if the page was an article, the "policies" are fake, anyway.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Wed 14th May 2008, 5:54pm
Post #9


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 14th May 2008, 1:47pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 5:43pm) *
And if so, does it comply with WP:BLP#Non-article_space standards?
Does it matter? Even if the page was an article, the "policies" are fake, anyway.

Hrmm...

I confess I don't quite understand the concept of "fake policies" on a prominent site that purports to be a responsible encyclopedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kato
post Wed 14th May 2008, 6:03pm
Post #10


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767



Random832 has put the attack page up for deletion. This most obnoxious of bullying cliques, who degrade the battle against pseudo-science further at every turn, are out to demand that the page be restored in the deletion debate. Clearly against the well being of the site. Clearly against convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mis...on/User:Moulton

Random832 has impressively created a rebuke page, outlining why Felonious's attack page is a pack of lies and a smear campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Random832/User:Moulton

The attack clique responsible for this shameful display are :
  1. Felonious
  2. Jim62sch
  3. Guettarda
  4. Filll
  5. Raul654
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 14th May 2008, 6:14pm
Post #11


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 1:54pm) *

QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 14th May 2008, 1:47pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 5:43pm) *

And if so, does it comply with WP:BLP#Non-article_space standards?


Does it matter? Even if the page was an article, the "policies" are fake, anyway.


Hrmm …

I confess I don't quite understand the concept of "fake policies" on a prominent site that purports to be a responsible encyclopedia.


Dear Miss WikiPolyANI,

We can see that you will never tire of dancing around like a witless simp.

However, more and more of us are getting pretty damn tired of the bit.

It's not that the un-brain-dead among us don't get it —

It's that your play-acting is demoralizing to those poor fools who assume good faith and take it seriously.

This Revue is for educating and informing, not for demoralizing.

Jon cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Wed 14th May 2008, 6:20pm
Post #12


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



The shameful thing is that they carry it on so openly. They are all involved, they are clearly co-ordinated (or at least of such a common vindictive purpose that they require no prompting to back each other up), and it is now getting so prominent that everyone is in no doubt as to what the game is. It long ago ceased being about protecting the truth, it is pure out and out hatred. Your either for them or your against them.

This time I think the behaviour is so blatant that I don't see how they could survive a critical RFC, and if they gerrymandered that, as they will, it would be an easy case for ArbCom to rule on.

So, give them their head, let them leave their trail of abuse and let's see if ArbCom can produce an appropriate sanction for the all the bloodshed of this particular battle.

How many of them work together?

In 5 or 10 years time, when they grow up, how much shame will they feel at this behaviour?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
UseOnceAndDestroy
post Wed 14th May 2008, 6:21pm
Post #13


Über Member
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri 7th Dec 2007, 3:43pm
Member No.: 4,073



QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 6:54pm) *

QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 14th May 2008, 1:47pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 5:43pm) *
And if so, does it comply with WP:BLP#Non-article_space standards?
Does it matter? Even if the page was an article, the "policies" are fake, anyway.

Hrmm...

I confess I don't quite understand the concept of "fake policies" on a prominent site that purports to be a responsible encyclopedia.

I think you do. I can see the endearing naif bit is great if you're trying to engage kids - most reading this are not kids, and I'm certain you're capable of a level of serious commentary that would leave these pillocks standing.

PS - what JA said, too.


This post has been edited by UseOnceAndDestroy: Wed 14th May 2008, 6:22pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
House of Cards
post Wed 14th May 2008, 6:27pm
Post #14


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon 12th May 2008, 6:51pm
From: Neither here nor there
Member No.: 6,114



QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 14th May 2008, 5:40pm) *

Obviously, none of the links to Moulton's "recruiting meatpuppets at Wikipedia Review" contain any content in which he even vaguely suggests that people should actively take up his specific cause on Wikipedia - he's just posting a link to every Moulton post that's tangentially related to evolution vs. ID, under the assumption that people won't click on them.

Indeed. I know rather little about Moulton's history with WP, but I did click on some of these links and could not figure out how they could be considered evidence at all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 14th May 2008, 6:32pm
Post #15


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 14th May 2008, 2:20pm) *

The shameful thing is that they carry it on so openly. They are all involved, they are clearly co-ordinated (or at least of such a common vindictive purpose that they require no prompting to back each other up), and it is now getting so prominent that everyone is in no doubt as to what the game is. It long ago ceased being about protecting the truth, it is pure out and out hatred. Your either for them or your against them.

This time I think the behaviour is so blatant that I don't see how they could survive a critical RFC, and if they gerrymandered that, as they will, it would be an easy case for ArbCom to rule on.

So, give them their head, let them leave their trail of abuse and let's see if ArbCom can produce an appropriate sanction for the all the bloodshed of this particular battle.

How many of them work together?

In 5 or 10 years time, when they grow up, how much shame will they feel at this behaviour?


It appears that introductions are in order …

Flag, Flagpole.
Flagpole, Flag.

Jon cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Wed 14th May 2008, 7:05pm
Post #16


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 14th May 2008, 2:20pm) *
How many of them work together?

Most of them work together on the WikiClique on Intelligent Design.

QUOTE
In 5 or 10 years time, when they grow up, how much shame will they feel at this behaviour?

I'm not interested in causing any of them to experience or feel shame.

There is a more appropriate affective emotional state called remorse that I'd prefer they arrive at. Remorse differs from shame in a subtle way. Remorse is the emotion that motivates someone to change their practices, going forward. Remorse is a healthy emotion, and nothing to be embarrassed about.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Wed 14th May 2008, 8:16pm
Post #17


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015



QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 8:05pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 14th May 2008, 2:20pm) *
How many of them work together?

Most of them work together on the WikiClique on Intelligent Design.

I thought some were real life work mates.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Wed 14th May 2008, 11:26pm
Post #18


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 14th May 2008, 4:16pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 8:05pm) *
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 14th May 2008, 2:20pm) *
How many of them work together?
Most of them work together on the WikiClique on Intelligent Design.
I thought some were real life work mates.

Some of them endorse each other on Naymz, but the ones I've seen all work in unrelated organizations.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Castle Rock
post Wed 14th May 2008, 11:47pm
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu 13th Sep 2007, 7:27am
From: Oregon
Member No.: 3,051



QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 1:06am) *

Can someone help me parse this ...

QUOTE(Deletion Log for User:Moulton)
* 05:24, 6 May 2008 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton" ‎ (CAT:TEMP: Temporary userpage deletion: redelete until I find or make the proper template for this)
* 05:23, 6 May 2008 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Moulton" ‎ (3 revisions restored: redelete until I figure out the right template)
* 05:19, 6 May 2008 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Moulton" ‎ (1 revision restored)
* 04:14, 27 February 2008 Mr.Z-man (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton" ‎ (old temporary userpage)
* 22:53, 23 October 2007 ST47 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Moulton" ‎ (Temporary page, too old)

Was he looking for some kind of Scarlet Letter tag or what?

And if so, for what purpose?


Once you realize that Felonious is essentially a thug, everything else falls into place neatly.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Wed 14th May 2008, 11:58pm
Post #20


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The history on User:Moulton has been scrubbed to remove any record of the previous versions placed there by FM and others.

However, I found that FM had deposited essentially the same material at the end of the talk page on my old RfC...

QUOTE(FM's additions to talk page for RfC)
Consolidated list of discussions pertaining to community ban

* Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton
* Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Enough
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton
* Request to Arbcom to be unblocked, rejected

Meatpuppetry evidence since ban

Evidence of recruiting, directing meatpuppets to continue campaign from Wikipedia Review

* Example of Moulton's original editing campaign at Rosalind Picard: [5]
* Moulton's article at Wikipedia Review advocating continuing his campaign at Rosalind Picard and James Tour: "So I am disgusted with Wikipedia" April 5th, 2008
* Moulton recruiting meat puppets at Wikipedia Review: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], and so on for 4 more pages...
* Moulton stating he intends to bring the matter to the press: [18]
* Krimpet arrives at Rosalind Picard making the exact same edits Moulton advocated: May 4, 2008
* Moulton advising meatpuppets on edits on his behalf to scuttle a hard-won consensus: Wikipedia Review, May 12, 2008
* Brand new user making his first two edits matching Moulton's above requested content word-for-word within hours of Moulton's request: May 12, 2008 May 12, 2008 Same, acknowledging he's acted in response to Moulton's call: [19]
* Acknowledgements of directing meatpuppets: [20][21][22]
* Acknowledgement from admin of acting on Moulton's behalf: [23]

Note that Krimpet is now listed by name as a suspected "meatpuppet" and a new entry has been added for The_undertow.

Meantime, Random832 has "courtesy blanked" his detailed analysis of the flaws in FM's evidence and reasoning.

I'm wondering if Random832's vanished analysis also belongs in the talk page for the RfC, where FM seeks to reprise, retain, and expand his allegations and evidence.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Tue 20th May 2008, 8:58pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th 2 18, 5:06am