Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Editors _ What Is FeloniousMonk Up To Here?
Posted by: Moulton
Can someone help me parse http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 ...
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)
* 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?
Posted by: Moulton
Since I posted the above http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&action=history 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_undertow#User:Moulton on the Talk Page for User:The_undertow. As I understand it, both are admins on WP.
Posted by: Kato
Wow. This is especially nasty behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=212354575&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.
Posted by: Somey
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...
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Get A Clue, Moulton —
There Is No Off Switch On The Revenge Machine …
And Now The Governor Is Off, Too …
Jon 
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 14th May 2008, 11:37am) 
Wow. This is really bizarre behavior.
....
This is truly Orwellian.
....
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Participants.
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?
Posted by: Moulton
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.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 5:43pm)
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
Does it matter? Even if the page was an article, the "policies" are fake, anyway.
Posted by: Moulton
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.
Posted by: Kato
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:Miscellany_for_deletion/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 :
- Felonious
- Jim62sch
- Guettarda
- Filll
- Raul654
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 1:54pm)
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 14th May 2008, 1:47pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 5:43pm)
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
Posted by: dogbiscuit
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?
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
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.
Posted by: House of Cards
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.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
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
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 14th May 2008, 2:20pm)
How many of them work together?
Most of them work together on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Participants.
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.
Posted by: dogbiscuit
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Participants.
I thought some were real life work mates.
Posted by: Moulton
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Participants.Some of them endorse each other on Naymz, but the ones I've seen all work in unrelated organizations.
Posted by: Castle Rock
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 1:06am)
Can someone help me parse http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 ...
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)
* 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.
Posted by: Moulton
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Consolidated_list_of_discussions_pertaining_to_community_ban...
QUOTE(FM's additions to talk page for RfC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#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]
* Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton
* Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Enough
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton
* Request to Arbcom to be unblocked, rejected
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Random832/User:Moulton&diff=212442514&oldid=212433604.
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.
Posted by: Sxeptomaniac
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Wed 14th May 2008, 4:47pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 1:06am)
Can someone help me parse http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 ...
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)
* 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.
I'm beginning to suspect that the attempt to redefine Moulton as banned may be part of an attempt to be more underhanded, though implemented in a rather thuggish way. It's been pretty clear that the anti-ID group considers [[Rosalind Picard]] and [[James Tour]] their territory, and did not appreciate the group that argued against their coatrack articles, as the BLP policy puts them at a disadvantage. As long as Moulton is merely defined as a blocked editor, it's fine for him to suggest edits, as he was blocked for behavioral issues, not the content of his edits. However, if they redefine Moulton as banned, it would give them new leverage at the article, as anyone opposing them on [[Rosalind Picard]] or [[James Tour]] could be accused of editing on behalf of a banned user, and ignored or blocked as a meatpuppet of a banned user.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Thu 15th May 2008, 12:34pm)
I'm beginning to suspect that the attempt to redefine Moulton as banned may be part of an attempt to be more underhanded, though implemented in a rather thuggish way.
What concerns me, even more than the strange way I've been treated, is the evidence that my case wasn't all that unusual. It appeared to me that I was just one of many academics who ran into that http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/MeatGrinder.html.
Posted by: Moulton
Krimpet has submitted this testimony to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence among Cla68, SlimVirgin, and FeloniousMonk...
QUOTE(Krimpet's Testimony)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#A_first-hand_experience_of_bullying_by_FeloniousMonk
I recently had the misfortune of being targetted by FeloniousMonk's personal attacks firsthand - not a pleasant experience. The week before, I had tried to fix a coatracky BLP on a woman in the field of computer science, which focused too much on one event in her life without putting it in context, only to find I'd walked into a landmine of controversy between the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, of which FeloniousMonk was a member, with an indefinitely blocked user, User:Moulton. An ensuing edit war erupted - of which I took no part in other than my initial edit and one revert - which eventually ended in the BLP being brought to an acceptable state, though with plenty of unneeded conflict, as well as a slew off harrowing insults from WikiProject ID members.
But after this dispute had been over for a week, hoping it was now in the past I came across an MfD for the User:Moulton page - and found that FeloniousMonk had added a sentence describing me as a "Wikipedia Review editor" and a "meatpuppet" that had been "recruited" by him - an untrue allegation constituting a direct and insulting personal attack against myself. (He also proceeded to protect his version of the page at this time - strongly forbidden by our protection policy and community rules of thumb.) I removed the attack with a simple plea not to drag me back into the dispute, but FeloniousMonk only re-added it to a new page, even refining it to word it more sharply against me and single me out more pointedly. My attempts to remove it and ask him on his talk page to stop were rebuffed with him re-adding the attack and replying that he had "diffs" supposedly confirming I was meatpuppeting, which he didn't actually provide.
This behavior is not only against our policies forbidding personal attacks; it's baiting, drama-mongering, and hostile to collaboration. Trying to force an established user to be branded with the label of "meatpuppet" with no evidence after the dispute is over serves no purpose but to inflame things more. krimpet✽ 13:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently had the misfortune of being targetted by FeloniousMonk's personal attacks firsthand - not a pleasant experience. The week before, I had tried to fix a coatracky BLP on a woman in the field of computer science, which focused too much on one event in her life without putting it in context, only to find I'd walked into a landmine of controversy between the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, of which FeloniousMonk was a member, with an indefinitely blocked user, User:Moulton. An ensuing edit war erupted - of which I took no part in other than my initial edit and one revert - which eventually ended in the BLP being brought to an acceptable state, though with plenty of unneeded conflict, as well as a slew off harrowing insults from WikiProject ID members.
But after this dispute had been over for a week, hoping it was now in the past I came across an MfD for the User:Moulton page - and found that FeloniousMonk had added a sentence describing me as a "Wikipedia Review editor" and a "meatpuppet" that had been "recruited" by him - an untrue allegation constituting a direct and insulting personal attack against myself. (He also proceeded to protect his version of the page at this time - strongly forbidden by our protection policy and community rules of thumb.) I removed the attack with a simple plea not to drag me back into the dispute, but FeloniousMonk only re-added it to a new page, even refining it to word it more sharply against me and single me out more pointedly. My attempts to remove it and ask him on his talk page to stop were rebuffed with him re-adding the attack and replying that he had "diffs" supposedly confirming I was meatpuppeting, which he didn't actually provide.
This behavior is not only against our policies forbidding personal attacks; it's baiting, drama-mongering, and hostile to collaboration. Trying to force an established user to be branded with the label of "meatpuppet" with no evidence after the dispute is over serves no purpose but to inflame things more. krimpet✽ 13:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
More than half the phrases in the above are blue links to the relevant references. Please see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#A_first-hand_experience_of_bullying_by_FeloniousMonk to descend the links to the numerous items of evidence Krimpet is relying on.
Posted by: Moulton
Dan Tobias has submitted this testimony to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence among Cla68, SlimVirgin, and FeloniousMonk...
QUOTE(Testimony of Dan Tobias)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#FeloniousMonk_has_promoted_a_toxic.2C_divisive_mindset
User:FeloniousMonk has long been championing a very divisive, "us vs. them" mentality on Wikipedia, complete with "enemies lists" and guilt by association, in which he classifies people as part of "good" or "bad" crowds and tries to hound the "bad" ones off the project. A few examples:
* "This RFC has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. Thanks!" (in response to a user-conduct RFC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MONGO_3&diff=172219643&oldid=172219419
* "What I've seen here is very one-sided bullying and intimidation of SV over a petty, contrived issue, and it's going to stop, Kelly included." (in response to some users expressing legitimate concerns about a copyvio image that was ultimately deleted, and then-admin Kelly Martin attempting to deal evenhandedly with the dispute) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AShii%2FImage_talk%3AAnime_by_nima.jpg&diff=55689249&oldid=55687840
* "Your little group has recently tightened the FA criteria to the point of absurdity... I'm taking a personal interest in seeing your group's vendetta against Raul654 and SlimVirgin aired out and ended for good." (in response to a disagreement over Featured Article criteria) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=143898730&oldid=143737099
* "Given our policy on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN#Coercion, were I in your shoes I would make every effort to ensure that the article outing Wikipedia editors you are referring to does not come to pass." (to Cla68, regarding a hypothetical article that he has absolutely nothing to do with; in this diff, FM also linked to Wikipedia Review, which is hypocritical given that he's an outspoken member of a faction that insists that it is never justified to link to such "attack sites" under any circumstances) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=prev&oldid=211409196
User:FeloniousMonk has long been championing a very divisive, "us vs. them" mentality on Wikipedia, complete with "enemies lists" and guilt by association, in which he classifies people as part of "good" or "bad" crowds and tries to hound the "bad" ones off the project. A few examples:
* "This RFC has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. Thanks!" (in response to a user-conduct RFC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MONGO_3&diff=172219643&oldid=172219419
* "What I've seen here is very one-sided bullying and intimidation of SV over a petty, contrived issue, and it's going to stop, Kelly included." (in response to some users expressing legitimate concerns about a copyvio image that was ultimately deleted, and then-admin Kelly Martin attempting to deal evenhandedly with the dispute) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AShii%2FImage_talk%3AAnime_by_nima.jpg&diff=55689249&oldid=55687840
* "Your little group has recently tightened the FA criteria to the point of absurdity... I'm taking a personal interest in seeing your group's vendetta against Raul654 and SlimVirgin aired out and ended for good." (in response to a disagreement over Featured Article criteria) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=143898730&oldid=143737099
* "Given our policy on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN#Coercion, were I in your shoes I would make every effort to ensure that the article outing Wikipedia editors you are referring to does not come to pass." (to Cla68, regarding a hypothetical article that he has absolutely nothing to do with; in this diff, FM also linked to Wikipedia Review, which is hypocritical given that he's an outspoken member of a faction that insists that it is never justified to link to such "attack sites" under any circumstances) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cla68&diff=prev&oldid=211409196
Posted by: Moulton
This next item is interesting. I'll post it as a quiz...
1. Which editor posted this testimony?
2. Which editor is it criticizing?
QUOTE(Mystery Testimony by Editor X)
Editor Y has engaged in a long-running pattern of harassment of editors he dislikes designed to drive them away from Wikipedia, or at least to make them feel very uncomfortable and weaken whatever esteem the community holds for them and thus render them unable to oppose him. This pattern of harassment includes wikistalking by inserting himself into content and other disputes his marks were involved in but he was not, and targeted personal attacks meant to fan the flames at these minor disputes to turn them into larger imbroglios, and recruiting others to join in. Over time his aggression has evolved to into making divisive and biased statements about fellow editors in the press and threats to out editors he opposes to the press.
His focus on editors he dislikes is sustained, obsessive and aggressive and has had the effect of threatening or intimidating not only his intended targets, but also has had a chilling effect community as a whole. Editor Y's use of RFC, when viewed outside of context may appear to be reasonable and expected attempts at dispute resolution. But when viewed in the context of his long-running harassment, his use of RFC is clearly meant to be an extension of his pattern of harassment. Going beyond the simple use of non-neutral tone, his descriptions of conflicts in RFC are wholly biased against their subject. Instead of resolving disputes his RFCs have perpetuated them through polarizing and divisive rhetoric, resulting in a bunker mentality in those who are targeted while fanning whatever flames in others that suit his ends and are handy in the community.
His focus on editors he dislikes is sustained, obsessive and aggressive and has had the effect of threatening or intimidating not only his intended targets, but also has had a chilling effect community as a whole. Editor Y's use of RFC, when viewed outside of context may appear to be reasonable and expected attempts at dispute resolution. But when viewed in the context of his long-running harassment, his use of RFC is clearly meant to be an extension of his pattern of harassment. Going beyond the simple use of non-neutral tone, his descriptions of conflicts in RFC are wholly biased against their subject. Instead of resolving disputes his RFCs have perpetuated them through polarizing and divisive rhetoric, resulting in a bunker mentality in those who are targeted while fanning whatever flames in others that suit his ends and are handy in the community.
Posted by: Kato
I thought exactly the same thing when I saw it. Incredibly, it's FeloniousMonk talking about Cla68. This kind of lack of self-awareness is common among the Grandes Dames of Wikipedia.
JzG is forever criticizing "obnoxious drama magnets". Slim spent years attacking "POV pushers". Etc etc.
Posted by: Moulton
There is a term in Psychology called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection, wherein one projects onto others their own worst faults.
Could the above testimony by Editor X be an instance of projection?
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 19th May 2008, 4:28am)
There is a term in Psychology called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection, wherein one projects onto others their own worst faults.
Could the above testimony by Editor X be an instance of projection?
No. It's likely just a lack of self reflection and an inability to see two sides of a dispute. Good old fashioned ignorance, in fact.
Posted by: Moulton
To be fair, I can't make heads nor tails of the http://web.media.mit.edu/~bkort/Drama.html of the members of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 19th May 2008, 4:39am)
To be fair, I can't make heads nor tails of the http://web.media.mit.edu/~bkort/Drama.html of the members of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design.
I imagine they see themselves as being on the frontline of the battle against pseudo science. This is ostensibly a legitimate battle, and it is good that important information that sits at the top of a google search isn't contaminated by that nonsense.
But as with a lot of this stuff, when the issues become complex and politicized, and are not clear-cut from an immediate glance, such as the Picard business or the ME/CFS, these wannabe warriors are too distracted to read the small print. They end up making blunders and snap judgments leading to collateral damage. Having committed themselves, egos get involved and they won't back down or admit error.
I don't know whether it is because these people are just young and naive, or whether they are scientists and lack the necessary understanding of the political issues - which is quite conceivable from my experience of scientists. But they have dropped a howler in this case.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 19th May 2008, 12:46am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 19th May 2008, 4:39am)
To be fair, I can't make heads nor tails of the http://web.media.mit.edu/~bkort/Drama.html of the members of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design.
I imagine they see themselves as being on the frontline of the battle against pseudo science. This is ostensibly a legitimate battle, and it is good that important information that sits at the top of a google search isn't contaminated by that nonsense. Here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Moulton.27s_understanding_of_Filll on that point...
QUOTE(Moulton to WAS 4.250)
With respect to the more difficult problem of presenting science in a way that honors both the educational outreach mission of Wikipedia and the rigors of science itself, I am more than willing to offer my experience as a science educator, with twenty years experience with the Boston Museum of Science. I believe it is possible not only to present science in a readable manner to children and adults, but also to adhere to the principles of the scientific method whilst crafting articles on subjects of scientific interest. The late Carl Sagan did not shy away from answering pseudo-science with authentic science. And while I am hardly in his league as a popularizer of science, I do appreciate his inspiring example. —Moulton (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
QUOTE(Kato)
But as with a lot of this stuff, when the issues become complex and politicized, and are not clear-cut from an immediate glance, such as the Picard business or the ME/CFS, these wannabe warriors are too distracted to read the small print. They end up making blunders and snap judgments leading to collateral damage. Having committed themselves, egos get involved and they won't back down or admit error.
Science Officer Spock would never be so clumsy, erratic, or ham-handed.
QUOTE(Kato)
I don't know whether it is because these people are just young and naive, or whether they are scientists and lack the necessary understanding of the political issues - which is quite conceivable from my experience of scientists. But they have dropped a howler in this case.
They are not scientists. Scientists examine the evidence for any and all theories with a skeptical eye and rigorously adhere to the protocols of the Scientific Method. Scientists are collegial and congenial and do not engage in bullying. Rather we reason things out. And, yes, JK Rowling would also be appalled.
See here...
Scientists Call For Rigorous Adherence To the Protocols of the Scientific Method
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of pseudonymous editors and their rule-based policies to fully account for the dysfunctionality of Wikipedia. Careful examination of the evidence for Social Contract Theory should be encouraged."
Posted by: Moulton
Yet another strand in the Tholian Web
User:G-Dett presents his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:G-Dett...
QUOTE(Testimony by G-Dett)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:G-Dett
In the context of a dispute related to the recent Gary Weiss debacle, Felonious posted a report on me at AN/I, falsely alleging that I was “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=176928919.†Here was the exchanged he referred to:
That episode (archived http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#G-Dett in its entirety) is worth recalling as Felonious files yet another formal complaint alleging “implicit threats†on the part of a Wikipedian he’s in dispute with. Cla68 has pointed out several times that his remark on Wikipedia Review – wherein he wondered if a specific group of editors “are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia" – was a reply to a lengthy post by another WR editor and blogger who described pursuing the story in print elsewhere. In other words, one guy says hey, people are looking into this and this is going to be a story, and Cla68 says, Wow, I wonder if these POV-pushers know about that; that's it, and there's no suggestion at all that the flow of speculated consequences is up to Cla68. None of Felonious' allegations about Cla68's "threats" have included this context, or even acknowledged Cla's repeated clarifications of same.
It's worth pointing out that this represents Cla68's consistent attitude toward the POV-pushing and team shenanigans that are the source of all this nonsense: his position is that this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, a project he manifestly cares deeply about (thousands of extremely high-quality edits and FA articles), and that these embarrassments are bound to become even more chronic damaging when the media gets a hold of them. To say that he welcomes damage to a project he has done more than anyone to build and improve is perverse.
Three days ago another http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFeloniousMonk&diff=212463744&oldid=212441838 for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_undertow&diff=prev&oldid=212461155 and treating him “like a dog you need to shame.†[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=next&oldid=212467149] In that case there was nothing at all “implicit†in Felonious’s threat: “This was a violation of WP:CIVIL. Keep it up and I'll take a personal interest in seeing that you are prevented from making one again." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_undertow&diff=prev&oldid=212461155] Felonious nevertheless explained that by definition this was not a threat because he, Felonious, is an admin and was in the right: "Stopping an incivil editor from being uncivil is one of the jobs of an admin. Saying that you will do so is never a threat." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=prev&oldid=212465109]
The picture that begins to emerge here is that Felonious doesn't use the word "threat" in its ordinary dictionary sense – to describe, that is, a statement of the form If you don't do stop doing X I will do Y to you, and you won't like it. Statements of this kind aren't threats, according to his definition, if the person making them has authority and righteousness on his side. Statements by someone who doesn't have authority in his eyes, conversely, can properly be described as "threats" even if they include nothing whatsoever about retaliation.
"Making threats," in short, is for Felonious a kind of idiosyncratic synonym for "insubordination," basically for uppitiness. This semantic peculiarity should be borne in mind as the committee weighs his allegations against Cla68.--G-Dett (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
In the context of a dispute related to the recent Gary Weiss debacle, Felonious posted a report on me at AN/I, falsely alleging that I was “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=176928919.†Here was the exchanged he referred to:
OK, that constitutes a clear personal attack on Sami. This campaign has become disruptive. Knock it off. I've removed the personal attack. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)In the face of general bafflement at his description of my post as a “threat†(as one uninvolved editor put it, “it appears to be nothing more than a request to disengage"), Felonious explained that "since the unwritten or unspoken clause is usually 'or else...' it's an implied threat in my experience." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=176931927] I reminded him that whatever the value of such speculations into the unsaid, the unwritten, the unknown, and the invisible, they didn't belong on the "incidents" noticeboard.Describing my contributions as a "campaign" is unwarranted and insulting, Felonious. Sami has attacked me incessantly on this page, and I've kept my cool in the face of it. What you just deleted, moreover, was not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. Admin privileges or no, I suggest you back off.--G-Dett (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That episode (archived http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#G-Dett in its entirety) is worth recalling as Felonious files yet another formal complaint alleging “implicit threats†on the part of a Wikipedian he’s in dispute with. Cla68 has pointed out several times that his remark on Wikipedia Review – wherein he wondered if a specific group of editors “are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia" – was a reply to a lengthy post by another WR editor and blogger who described pursuing the story in print elsewhere. In other words, one guy says hey, people are looking into this and this is going to be a story, and Cla68 says, Wow, I wonder if these POV-pushers know about that; that's it, and there's no suggestion at all that the flow of speculated consequences is up to Cla68. None of Felonious' allegations about Cla68's "threats" have included this context, or even acknowledged Cla's repeated clarifications of same.
It's worth pointing out that this represents Cla68's consistent attitude toward the POV-pushing and team shenanigans that are the source of all this nonsense: his position is that this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, a project he manifestly cares deeply about (thousands of extremely high-quality edits and FA articles), and that these embarrassments are bound to become even more chronic damaging when the media gets a hold of them. To say that he welcomes damage to a project he has done more than anyone to build and improve is perverse.
Three days ago another http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFeloniousMonk&diff=212463744&oldid=212441838 for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_undertow&diff=prev&oldid=212461155 and treating him “like a dog you need to shame.†[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=next&oldid=212467149] In that case there was nothing at all “implicit†in Felonious’s threat: “This was a violation of WP:CIVIL. Keep it up and I'll take a personal interest in seeing that you are prevented from making one again." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_undertow&diff=prev&oldid=212461155] Felonious nevertheless explained that by definition this was not a threat because he, Felonious, is an admin and was in the right: "Stopping an incivil editor from being uncivil is one of the jobs of an admin. Saying that you will do so is never a threat." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=prev&oldid=212465109]
The picture that begins to emerge here is that Felonious doesn't use the word "threat" in its ordinary dictionary sense – to describe, that is, a statement of the form If you don't do stop doing X I will do Y to you, and you won't like it. Statements of this kind aren't threats, according to his definition, if the person making them has authority and righteousness on his side. Statements by someone who doesn't have authority in his eyes, conversely, can properly be described as "threats" even if they include nothing whatsoever about retaliation.
"Making threats," in short, is for Felonious a kind of idiosyncratic synonym for "insubordination," basically for uppitiness. This semantic peculiarity should be borne in mind as the committee weighs his allegations against Cla68.--G-Dett (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe FeloniousMonk can help elevate the article on anankastic conditionals to Featured Article status.
Posted by: Moulton
User:B has filed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:B in the case.
QUOTE(Evidence submitted by User:B)
Evidence presented by User:B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:B
FeloniousMonk (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) was previously admonished by arbcom not to use the administrative tools in content areas where he is involved. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#FeloniousMonk_admonished.
Despite this admonition, substantially all of FM's admin actions in the last year relate to the Intelligent Design topic area in some way. Since FM himself is less than neutral here, this is obviously a problem. I have only included actions since May 1, 2007 and ignored prior things like wheel warring over blocks of Giovanni33 or Homeontherange.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:B--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:B
FeloniousMonk (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) was previously admonished by arbcom not to use the administrative tools in content areas where he is involved. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#FeloniousMonk_admonished.
Despite this admonition, substantially all of FM's admin actions in the last year relate to the Intelligent Design topic area in some way. Since FM himself is less than neutral here, this is obviously a problem. I have only included actions since May 1, 2007 and ignored prior things like wheel warring over blocks of Giovanni33 or Homeontherange.
* 13 May 2008 - Fully protected User:Moulton immediately after adding a litany of false claims. Nobody had edited the page in five months, so there was no disruption reason to protect it.
* 13 May 2008 - Semi-protected Rosalind Picard even though he is obviously an involved admin and not a single editor who would be affected by semi-protection had edited the article since prior to the recently removed full protection.
* 13 May 2008 - Semi-protected James Tour even though no editor who would be affected by semi-protection had edited in six months.
* 4 May 2008 - Indefinite block of an IP (an IP that was almost nothing but trolling, but indefinite IP blocks are not a good thing)
* 18 April 2008 and 23 April 2008 - Blocks of Schlafly (talk · contribs). At the time of the first block, on April 18, Shlafly had not edited in seven hours. FM was an involved editor both on Eagle Forum and on Phyllis Schlafly‎ and should not have made a decision about a block here. Both of these articles are poorly sourced (when I see a source titled "Phyllis Schlafly's career as a NeoCon" I don't need to look much further). Blocking a user for attempting to remove libel about his mother is a really bad idea. Jimbo said "reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do."
* 1 December 2007 - Full protection of Discovery Institute, where he is obviously an involved user.
* 21 September 2007 - Indefinite block of Ferrylodge (talk · contribs), a block which a previous arbitration held was inappropriate
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:B--
Please refer to the on-wiki original for the blue-linked references within the above testimony.
Posted by: tarantino
Moulton, you've yet to get to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:FNMF, who was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AFNMF&year=&month=-1 by FM during a content dispute. The dispute was settled by Jimbo, when he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristopher_Michael_Langan&diff=116514311&oldid=116512682 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Michael_Langan&diff=116513802&oldid=116432075 the anti-ID cabal was trying to keep.
FMNF http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=213667457&oldid=213553286 on FT2's talk page -
QUOTE
I believe these problems are greater than I indicated in my evidence, and constitute a general pattern of bullying and intimidation which there was no point explaining in Evidence. But on the other hand, I believe this “general pattern†would not have been possible without the collusion of other editors who share FeloniousMonk’s opinion about creationists and who reinforce each other’s behaviour.
He fails to mention to FT2 one glaring incident that illustrates this, when http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FNMF&diff=137706838&oldid=137705465, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FNMF&diff=137714364&oldid=137707218, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FNMF&diff=137758799&oldid=137715211 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FNMF&diff=137842525&oldid=137805626 tried to intimidate him after they discovered he was a well-known Australian philosopher/author/filmmaker.
Posted by: Moulton
The FNMF testimony about the Christopher Langan article is all new to me.
But the pattern of abuse does look familiar.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 19th May 2008, 4:46am)
I imagine they see themselves as being on the frontline of the battle against pseudo science. This is ostensibly a legitimate battle, and it is good that important information that sits at the top of a google search isn't contaminated by that nonsense.
But as with a lot of this stuff, when the issues become complex and politicized, and are not clear-cut from an immediate glance, such as the Picard business or the ME/CFS, these wannabe warriors are too distracted to read the small print. They end up making blunders and snap judgments leading to collateral damage. Having committed themselves, egos get involved and they won't back down or admit error.
I think you're exactly right.
Many people join Wikipedia with the goal of promoting fringe views - they do so because Wikipedia invites them to by promising a "neutral point of view" and a correspondingly content-neutral disciplinary system. Those who wish to keep the project free from pseudoscience must adopt a confrontational and prosecutorial stance towards fringe view promoters in order to prevail. To withstand this, fringe-view promoters must hide their views to whatever extent possible, pretending to seek "neutrality" and focusing on incremental changes, without getting too specific about the overall editorial direction they'd like to see the project take.
Within this social context, it was predictable that Moulton's intellectualized commentary would be interpreted as a smokescreen behind which the mouse hoped to hide from the cats.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 20th May 2008, 10:52pm)
Within this social context, it was predictable that Moulton's intellectualized commentary would be interpreted as a smokescreen behind which the mouse hoped to hide from the cats.
So does that make me the mouse that roared?
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 20th May 2008, 4:43pm)
User:B has filed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:B in the C68/FM/SV case.
QUOTE(Evidence submitted by User:
Evidence presented by User:B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:B
FeloniousMonk (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) was previously admonished by arbcom not to use the administrative tools in content areas where he is involved. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#FeloniousMonk_admonished.
Despite this admonition, substantially all of FM's admin actions in the last year relate to the Intelligent Design topic area in some way. Since FM himself is less than neutral here, this is obviously a problem. I have only included actions since May 1, 2007 and ignored prior things like wheel warring over blocks of Giovanni33 or Homeontherange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:B
FeloniousMonk (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) was previously admonished by arbcom not to use the administrative tools in content areas where he is involved. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#FeloniousMonk_admonished.
Despite this admonition, substantially all of FM's admin actions in the last year relate to the Intelligent Design topic area in some way. Since FM himself is less than neutral here, this is obviously a problem. I have only included actions since May 1, 2007 and ignored prior things like wheel warring over blocks of Giovanni33 or Homeontherange.
* 13 May 2008 - Fully protected User:Moulton immediately after adding a litany of false claims. Nobody had edited the page in five months, so there was no disruption reason to protect it.
Lar, I need your help on this one, too. As you may recall, there ensued an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Moulton on User:Moulton with this outcome:
QUOTE(Outcome of MfD/User:Moulton)
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 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)
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)
As you may be aware, FeloniousMonk ported the "litany of false claims" to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Meatpuppetry_evidence_since_indef_block, which is in turn linked from User:Moulton.
As near as I can make out, the fact of FM porting the disputatious allegations of meat-puppetry from my user page to the talk page of the old RfC/Moulton has not been entered as evidence in the RfAr for C68-FM-SV. Nor am I aware of any requests for administrative attention to that fact, in view of the Whack-A-Mole relocation of the same problematic material from the User:Moulton page to a subordinate page linked from User:Moulton.
And so I am unclear on what needs to be done.
Should someone note that fact as germane evidence in the current RfAr?
Should someone place a notice on some WP:AN page requesting attention to the problem with the RfC/Moulton talk page? This is the unanswered question which Random832 posted in the MfD, as cited above.
Should I be afforded an opportunity to refute and rebut the unsupported allegations which FM ported into the talk page of the old RfC/Moulton? Should I simply do this on my talk page?
I am quite perplexed as to what needs to be done, who needs to do it, and in which bailiwick of the regulatory mechanism.
Posted by: Moulton
From the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PlatanusOccidentalis of User:PlatanusOccidentalis...
QUOTE(PlatanusOccidentalis talk page)
Welcome!
Hello, PlatanusOccidentalis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
* The five pillars of Wikipedia
* Tutorial
* How to edit a page
* How to write a great article
* Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PlatanusOccidentalis#Undoing_a_recent_consensus.3F
Based on the fact that your first two mainspace articles were to revert hard-won consensus Rosalind Picard and James Tour, the only two articles subject of a disruptive campaign organized at Wikipedia Review by a banned user, followed by a comment at User:Filll that appears to trolling, I'm issuing you this warning: If you continue to undo the fragile consensus at these two articles I will take it as evidence of your intent engage in disruptive editing and trolling rather than constructive contributions and will follow the steps outlined at WP:DE to stop the disruption, which may include a block or permanent ban. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PlatanusOccidentalis#Evidence_of_Meatpuppetry
User:Moulton is an indefinitely banned editor, and his ban was in large part due to his edits to Rosalind Picard vis-a-vis the petition. Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets not only strongly discourages editing on the behalf of banned editors, but provides for the original remedy applied to the banned user, his ban, to extend to his meatpuppets as well: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets"
After taking a look at your history and that of indef banned editor Moulton who has been recruiting and advising meatpuppets at Wikipedia Review on editing the Picard article in his place, I see that your edits here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=prev&oldid=212025422] exactly matches word-for-word the edits User:Moulton calls for someone there to make on his behalf: [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17882&st=140] Should you repeat the edits Moulton calls for at Rosalind Picard and James Tour Moulton's ban will be extended to cover you as well per Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely for trolling and abusing multiple accounts. See Special:Contributions/ACCWBHB and Special:Contributions/Mantan_Samuel_I._Harris_Moreland%27s_Last_Exit Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, PlatanusOccidentalis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
* The five pillars of Wikipedia
* Tutorial
* How to edit a page
* How to write a great article
* Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PlatanusOccidentalis#Undoing_a_recent_consensus.3F
Based on the fact that your first two mainspace articles were to revert hard-won consensus Rosalind Picard and James Tour, the only two articles subject of a disruptive campaign organized at Wikipedia Review by a banned user, followed by a comment at User:Filll that appears to trolling, I'm issuing you this warning: If you continue to undo the fragile consensus at these two articles I will take it as evidence of your intent engage in disruptive editing and trolling rather than constructive contributions and will follow the steps outlined at WP:DE to stop the disruption, which may include a block or permanent ban. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PlatanusOccidentalis#Evidence_of_Meatpuppetry
User:Moulton is an indefinitely banned editor, and his ban was in large part due to his edits to Rosalind Picard vis-a-vis the petition. Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets not only strongly discourages editing on the behalf of banned editors, but provides for the original remedy applied to the banned user, his ban, to extend to his meatpuppets as well: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets"
After taking a look at your history and that of indef banned editor Moulton who has been recruiting and advising meatpuppets at Wikipedia Review on editing the Picard article in his place, I see that your edits here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Picard&diff=prev&oldid=212025422] exactly matches word-for-word the edits User:Moulton calls for someone there to make on his behalf: [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17882&st=140] Should you repeat the edits Moulton calls for at Rosalind Picard and James Tour Moulton's ban will be extended to cover you as well per Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page. I was not recruited, I chose to do so. Filll and you chose to accuse me of meatpuppetry. PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PlatanusOccidentalis#Trolling_and_abusing_multiple_accountsWikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets fails to recognize such a distinction, and walking in the footsteps of a banned user has been the sole necessary and sufficient grounds for extending bans to meatpuppets in both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Meatpuppets and community convention. You've gotten very poor advice from Moulton; I suggest steering clear of the articles he's recruiting others to edit on his behalf. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)I am not here to act on Moulton's behalf (that just happened to be my first edits' purpose) and I will begin contributing other than that. PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely for trolling and abusing multiple accounts. See Special:Contributions/ACCWBHB and Special:Contributions/Mantan_Samuel_I._Harris_Moreland%27s_Last_Exit Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Note how FeloniousMonk uses an anankastic conditional as a bullying remark, signaling his intent to falsely accuse PlatanusOccidentalis of violating some convenient Kiboshnikov rule that enables FM to clobber a 12-yr old editor who is editing to improve the content of the encyclopedia in good faith and good conscience.
Posted by: Kato
So basically, the BLP situation on the Picard article has been reduced to admins bullying 12 year olds who themselves are creating fake accounts to mess with articles.
That's Wikipedia for you.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 26th May 2008, 12:16pm)
So basically, the BLP situation on the Picard article has been reduced to admins bullying 12 year olds who themselves are creating fake accounts to mess with articles.
That's Wikipedia for you.
That's Wikipedia for you.
What remains is to sort out who is acting ethically and in good faith, and who is acting out.
Posted by: Moulton
Oh, now this is interesting...
FeloniousMonk has compiled in his user space a lengthy and comprehensive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton that he has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_FeloniousMonk in his statement at RfAr/Moulton.
I worked my way through it, clicking each referenced item of evidence in turn, much the way Random832 did a week or two ago.
I don't know how hard Random832 had to work to discover that the cited evidence doesn't support the claims being made the last time around.
In this case it was simply laughable.
I wonder if we have any budding young scientists here who would like to invoke the protocols of the scientific method and carefully examine the evidence being cited for FM's posted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton.
Posted by: Kato
That guy must really hate your guts. I'm not sure what all those links are supposed to mean, but he's scoured the whole net to dig up the dirt on you. One of his links of "damning evidence" is you innocuously asking me to extract some off-topic posts about your religious blarney, from a thread here?!? Others link to all manner of sites.
Anyway, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton, FeloniousMonk has presented more evidence of a WP editor "stalking" another WP editor than I've ever seen in one place before. He should be banned.
Posted by: Moulton
Midnight Cowboy
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 27th May 2008, 11:31pm)
That guy must really hate your guts.
Interesting theory, Kato, but I don't have any evidence to support it.
QUOTE(Kato)
I'm not sure what all those links are supposed to mean, but he's scoured the whole net to dig up the dirt on you. One of his links of "damning evidence" is you innocuously asking me to extract some off-topic posts about your religious blarney, from a thread here?!? Others link to all manner of sites.
Remarkable, isn't it? I haven't quite figured out how my asking you to split off a http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18281 is probative of FM's novel theory that I'm conducting a campaign against Wikipedia. Isn't it obvious that I'm conducting a campaign against ignorance of scientific methods of evidence-based reasoning?
QUOTE(Kato)
Anyway, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton, FeloniousMonk has presented more evidence of a WP editor "stalking" another WP editor than I've ever seen in one place before. He should be banned.
Technically, I'm not a WP editor, since I'm indef-blocked. So we'll let him off the hook on that infraction.
But, if he were banned, he'd probably become cynical like Jonny or embittered like Murphy and Brandt. I'd rather he have an epiphany. Epiphanies are good for the soul, even if you don't believe in them (or in souls, for that matter).
OK. So, Kato found the first amusing item of non-probative "evidence". Who else would like to go for a ride on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton?
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 27th May 2008, 11:31pm)
That guy must really hate your guts. I'm not sure what all those links are supposed to mean, but he's scoured the whole net to dig up the dirt on you. One of his links of "damning evidence" is you innocuously asking me to extract some off-topic posts about your religious blarney, from a thread here?!? Others link to all manner of sites.
Anyway, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Moulton, FeloniousMonk has presented more evidence of a WP editor "stalking" another WP editor than I've ever seen in one place before. He should be banned.
FellatiousMonkey seems to like the phrase "gratuitous reference" a lot. In his prosecutions and defenses the phrase appears to serve two functions: (1) dismissing the facts that other people make "gratuitous reference" to, (2) blaming any fault on the people who make "gratuitous reference" to it.
Jon
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 28th May 2008, 12:56am)
FellatiousMonkey seems to like the phrase "gratuitous reference" a lot. In his prosecutions and defenses the phrase appears to serve two functions: (1) dismissing the facts that other people make "gratuitous reference" to, (2) blaming any fault on the people who make "gratuitous reference" to it.
Jon
Jon
I Googled for http://www.google.com/search?q=FeloniousMonk+%22gratuitous+reference%22 and the only hit was that evidence page...
QUOTE(FeloniousMonk - Gratuitous Comments About SlimVirgin)
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." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMONGO_3&diff=172039054&oldid=172036189]
* 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." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMONGO_3&diff=172039054&oldid=172036189]
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
http://www.google.com/search?q=FeloniousMonk+Gratuitous&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&filter=0.
Jon
Posted by: Piperdown
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 28th May 2008, 5:14am)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 28th May 2008, 12:56am)
FellatiousMonkey seems to like the phrase "gratuitous reference" a lot. In his prosecutions and defenses the phrase appears to serve two functions: (1) dismissing the facts that other people make "gratuitous reference" to, (2) blaming any fault on the people who make "gratuitous reference" to it.
Jon
Jon
I Googled for http://www.google.com/search?q=FeloniousMonk+%22gratuitous+reference%22 and the only hit was that evidence page...
QUOTE(FeloniousMonk - Gratuitous Comments About SlimVirgin)
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." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMONGO_3&diff=172039054&oldid=172036189]
* 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." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMONGO_3&diff=172039054&oldid=172036189]
that's not gratuitous. it would be if Linda ever had to be held accountable for it, but she wasn't.
And she's an admin and cla68 isn't.
that's fucked up, but that's WP.
Charles A.
- Puts out collaborative efforts for all to see on WP
Linda M.
- Had soopersekret mailing lists and chats, then springs the meatypuppet attacks at the last hour of several RFA's
Chas
- POV Pusher? Pushes a POV that FA"s should be extensively documented with facts
Linda M
- PETA POV Warrior #1. If there's an article on something that ever hurt an animal, She'll be there to put gory pics in the top screen of the page, and overweight the article with gratuitous sourcing from suspect animal rights news letters.
Chas
- Answers any questions on his userpage
Linda
- Blank & Archive & get Crummy to do a Oversight-via-delete-restore dance
Oh, I could go on.
What sane people on WP (there are some, right?) see in Linda, I don't know. Free labour? Or just a FuckSomeoneOverYouDon'tLike Buddy?
This just in - Squeakbox is still contributing to WP:WANKING. Lol. You remember that one, eh Squeak? Do'n't answer, that's a rhetorical question.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 28th May 2008, 1:25am)
http://www.google.com/search?q=FeloniousMonk+Gratuitous&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&filter=0.
Jon
Jon
The derivative term I like is "gratuity" which is a "free will offering".
I am most grateful for all the generous "free will offerings" FM has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Responses_of_other_online_communities_to_Moulton in his user space. It was most helpful of him to diligently research and unearth all that long lost, long buried, and long forgotten fossil record.
The next riddle is to solve the tantalizing mystery of what all that curious evidence is probative of.
Darwin studied the fossil record and produced his remarkable theory.
What comparable scientific theory emerges from the fossil record which FM has just unearthed?
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 28th May 2008, 8:36am)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 28th May 2008, 1:25am)
http://www.google.com/search?q=FeloniousMonk+Gratuitous&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&filter=0.
Jon
The derivative term I like is "gratuity" which is a "free will offering".
I am most grateful for all the generous "free will offerings" FM has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom_evidence#Responses_of_other_online_communities_to_Moulton in his user space. It was most helpful of him to diligently research and unearth all that long lost, long buried, and long forgotten fossil record.
The next riddle is to solve the tantalizing mystery of what all that curious evidence is probative of.
Darwin studied the fossil record and produced his remarkable theory.
What comparable scientific theory emerges from the fossil record which FM has just unearthed?
Perhaps all Wikipediots are descended from fellacious monkeys?
Jon
Posted by: Moulton
Orwellian and Kafkaesque
I started this thread back on May 14th, more than four months ago...
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 4:06am)
Can someone help me parse http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 ...
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)
* 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?
It was confusing to me...
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 14th May 2008, 11:22am)
Since I posted the above http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AMoulton&year=&month=-1 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&action=history 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_undertow#User:Moulton on the Talk Page for User:The_undertow. As I understand it, both are admins on WP.
Kato understood what was going on...
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 14th May 2008, 11:37am)
Wow. This is especially nasty behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=212354575&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.
And now the first act of the long-running drama is over.
The FeloniousMonk ArbCom case is officially closed. He was unanimously convicted of corruption and gross violations of policy, including "meritless accusations against other editors on multiple occasions."
Now the rest of IDCab has to be dealt with.
Starting with KillerChihuahua.
Posted by: Moulton
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=prev&oldid=241932130
Posted by: desiderat
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 30th September 2008, 4:27am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=prev&oldid=241932130
You'd think the ArbComm would at least require FM to apologize or take some sort of responsibility for his misdeeds?
Posted by: Moulton
Call for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_Justice
QUOTE(desiderat @ Sat 11th October 2008, 5:28pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 30th September 2008, 4:27am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=prev&oldid=241932130
You'd think the ArbComm would at least require FM to apologize or take some sort of responsibility for his misdeeds?I don't think it makes sense for ArbCom to coerce Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) into making such an apology against his will. Remorse is an an affective emotional state that arises through natural processes in the brain and mind, not through judgmental application of the http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness.
Rather I think it makes sense for ArbCom to take a leadership role in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_Justice, to systematically undo the considerable harm that Paul Mitchell and his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_intelligent_design&oldid=212601519#Participants have wreaked upon those whom they inexplicably targeted for such abusive treatment under the color of the http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission.
Last September, http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/ and made that very request:
QUOTE(E-Mail to ArbCom)
From: Barry Kort
To: NewYorkBrad (IBM), James Forrester
Cc: Privatemusings, Charles Ainsworth, Kieran Vale, Daniel R. Tobias, Sam Korn
Date: Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Subject: Please remediate the harm to the reputations of those sorely mistreated by rogue administrators.
In view of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#FeloniousMonk by ArbCom...
Please give us back our good name.
Barry
--
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
To: NewYorkBrad (IBM), James Forrester
Cc: Privatemusings, Charles Ainsworth, Kieran Vale, Daniel R. Tobias, Sam Korn
Date: Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Subject: Please remediate the harm to the reputations of those sorely mistreated by rogue administrators.
In view of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#FeloniousMonk by ArbCom...
2.1) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Inappropriate_use_of_admin_tools_by_FM]) ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Policy_violations_and_misuse_of_tools_by_FeloniousMonk]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#.22Making_threats.2C.22_.22implied_threats.2C.22_.22implicit_threats.2C.22_.22menacing.22_statements.2C_and_so_on]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#FeloniousMonk_has_promoted_a_toxic.2C_divisive_mindset]), and has made meritless accusations against other editors on several occasions ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#A_first-hand_experience_of_bullying_by_FeloniousMonk|example])....I request that ArbCom expressly undertake to remediate the damage to the reputation and good name of others who were http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/f/e/l/User_talk%7EFeloniousMonk_Arbcom_evidence_4828.html#Moulton by the pattern of conduct delineated in the above cited Paragraph 2.1.
Please give us back our good name.
Barry
--
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
I have not yet heard back from ArbCom.
Posted by: written by he who wrote it
QUOTE(desiderat @ Sat 11th October 2008, 9:28pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 30th September 2008, 4:27am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=prev&oldid=241932130
You'd think the ArbComm would at least require FM to apologize or take some sort of responsibility for his misdeeds?
Requiring him to apologize would be pointless: one has to feel genuine contrition to make a sincere apology, and it's clear that FM doesn't think he did anything wrong.
Posted by: Heat
QUOTE(written by he who wrote it @ Sat 11th October 2008, 10:43pm)
QUOTE(desiderat @ Sat 11th October 2008, 9:28pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 30th September 2008, 4:27am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeloniousMonk&diff=prev&oldid=241932130
You'd think the ArbComm would at least require FM to apologize or take some sort of responsibility for his misdeeds?
Requiring him to apologize would be pointless: one has to feel genuine contrition to make a sincere apology, and it's clear that FM doesn't think he did anything wrong.
He was one of the most arrogant bullies on WP so it's good to see the back of him - it's also interesting how few people came to his defense, a disgraced ex-admins like MONGO being the most notable exception. Where were his allies?
Anyway, it appears he's abandoned his disgraced FM account and has either left WP or adopted a sockpuppet.