| Revision as of 01:50, 4 September 2007 editFilll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,790 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:54, 4 September 2007 edit undoFilll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,790 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| and unethical behavior by not confirming this "fact" which he has repeatedly alleged (see for example, ), and Misplaced Pages is compounding the situation by using the New York Times as a reliable source. He aggressively harangued and lobbied many editors repeatedly with this POV, refusing to consider any other explanation or other interpretation but his own, which appears to have evolved over the last 10 days. However, as editing has progressed, it has become apparent that this representation by Moulton is almost certainly entirely false, and Moulton knew this the entire time, wasting a huge amount of time and effort of all concerned in a cavalier dishonest fashion: | and unethical behavior by not confirming this "fact" which he has repeatedly alleged (see for example, ), and Misplaced Pages is compounding the situation by using the New York Times as a reliable source. He aggressively harangued and lobbied many editors repeatedly with this POV, refusing to consider any other explanation or other interpretation but his own, which appears to have evolved over the last 10 days. However, as editing has progressed, it has become apparent that this representation by Moulton is almost certainly entirely false, and Moulton knew this the entire time, wasting a huge amount of time and effort of all concerned in a cavalier dishonest fashion: | ||
| Moulton has either been unable or unwilling to learn or understand how and why Misplaced Pages uses the ] and ] standards, and other rules and procedures. He has complained about this extensively on WP and externally: He has repeatedly expressed his disapproval of the rules, culture and ethics of Misplaced Pages, made assorted overt and veiled legal threats against it and its editors (in violation of ]). He has expressed the desire repeatedly to be able to manufacture "truths" for inclusion on Misplaced Pages, of which he personally is the sole and final arbiter. | Moulton has either been unable or unwilling to learn or understand how and why Misplaced Pages uses the ] and ] standards, and other rules and procedures. He has complained about this extensively on WP and externally: He has repeatedly expressed his disapproval of the rules, culture and ethics of Misplaced Pages, made assorted overt and veiled legal threats against it and its editors (in violation of ]). He has expressed the desire repeatedly to be able to manufacture unsourced "truths" for inclusion on Misplaced Pages, of which he personally is the sole and final arbiter (in violation of ]). | ||
| ==Violations== | ==Violations== | ||
Revision as of 01:54, 4 September 2007
User:Moulton has unfortunately evolved into a singularly unproductive element on Misplaced Pages, particularly on the articles Rosalind Picard, James Tour and A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Moulton constantly seeks to sublimate earnest discussion into repetitive debate and discussion structures that produce no results while exclusively promoting the pro-ID viewpoint while ignoring the full measure of available information, and at the same time loudly and repeatedly proclaiming he's opposed to ID and its agents, such as the Discovery Institute.
He has an obsession with such narrowness to the exclusion of readily available overviews of the topic from more reliable sources that contradict the pro-ID sources and objections he is promoting. He often quibbles over widely accepted facts (see for example) and definitions using the rhetorical arguments of the ID campaign with the net effect of driving discussion away from the acknowlegement of reliable mainstream sources with many baseless objections and attempts to redefine common definitions (for example, Moulton levels charges of spinning or "reframing" against the DI, Misplaced Pages, the New York Times and other editors at least 23 times on the talk page, such as at , and claiming that therefore we cannot interpret what is written as what is really meant, etc). In the course of his disruptive objections Moulton has an unfortunate habit of making constant ad hominem attacks and focusing on the "character" of Misplaced Pages editors, particularly those he opposes, to promote a dismissal of their comments while obfuscating the actual facts being discussed(see for an example). By continually resurrecting and injecting personal gripes into new discussions, Moulton has sought to prevent any in-depth discussion of the actual topic. For example, there are endless fights about whether the petition consists of one or two sentences, about whether the petition is controversial or not, about whether the petition was titled properly or not when Picard signed it (but has been able to provide any sources one way or the other on this issue), about whether the petition is anti-evolution or not, and about whether the New York Times is a reliable source or not. This is incredibly trying for anyone trying to make progress on the article and understand his concerns. He is clearly unable to accept that he cannot impose his will unilaterally on others on Misplaced Pages, and make up his own unsourced information to include in articles.
User:Moulton began editing on December 21, 2005, but only edited intermittently until August 22, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Moulton became obsessed with editing Rosalind Picard, and with editing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, a petition she allegedly signed. Moulton's main claim initially was that Picard was induced to sign the Dissent from Darwinism petition fraudulently and her position was and is diametrically opposed to that expressed by the petition and its Discovery Institute supporters. Moulton also claimed that The New York Times was guilty of shoddy journalism and unethical behavior by not confirming this "fact" which he has repeatedly alleged (see for example, ), and Misplaced Pages is compounding the situation by using the New York Times as a reliable source. He aggressively harangued and lobbied many editors repeatedly with this POV, refusing to consider any other explanation or other interpretation but his own, which appears to have evolved over the last 10 days. However, as editing has progressed, it has become apparent that this representation by Moulton is almost certainly entirely false, and Moulton knew this the entire time, wasting a huge amount of time and effort of all concerned in a cavalier dishonest fashion:
Moulton has either been unable or unwilling to learn or understand how and why Misplaced Pages uses the WP:V and WP:RS standards, and other rules and procedures. He has complained about this extensively on WP and externally: He has repeatedly expressed his disapproval of the rules, culture and ethics of Misplaced Pages, made assorted overt and veiled legal threats against it and its editors (in violation of WP:NPA). He has expressed the desire repeatedly to be able to manufacture unsourced "truths" for inclusion on Misplaced Pages, of which he personally is the sole and final arbiter (in violation of WP:NOR).
Violations
In the course of his discussions and edits, it is also clear that Moulton has violated a number of rules on Misplaced Pages:
Moulton knows the subject of this article well, and has revealed this repeatedly. He was repeatedly cautioned about being in violation of WP:COI if he continued editing the article, but he ignored this and continued to edit it anyway, sometimes responding in a less than civil fashion:
WP:3RR and WP:EW: This is a rough summary of the events transpiring when Moulton began editing Rosalind Picard:
- removal of sourced material: Aug 22, 0:52
- reverted by Hrafn42: Aug 22, 2:51
- insertion of new material, partially sourced: Aug 22, 12:02
- reverted by Hrafn42: Aug 22, 12:16
- reinsertion of new material: Aug 22, 13:16
- reverted and addition of new material by Hrafn42: Aug 22, 15:19
- Minor edits, inclusion of poorly described aside: Aug 2, 16:36
- reverted by Hrafn42 Aug 22, 17:11
- partially reverted by Moulton Aug 22, 17:19
- original material reintroduced by Hrafn42 Aug 22, 17:21
- reversion by Moulton Aug 22, 17:48
- reversion by Hrafn42 Aug 22, 18:19
- reinsertion/reversion by Moulton Aug 23, 01:29
- Reversion by Hrafn42 Aug 23, 01:52
- Reversion by Moulton Aug 23, 3:02
- Reversion by Hrafn42 Aug 23 3:53
- Reversion by Moulton Aug 23 4:03
- reversion by ConfuciusOrnis Aug 23 4:05
- reversion by Moulton Aug 23 4:15
- reversion by ConfuciusOrnis Aug 23 4:19
- introduction of tortious explanations by Moulton Aug 23 08:55
- removal of speculative material by Hrafn42 Aug 23 10:01
- reversion by Moulton Aug 23 10:16
- reversion by Hrafn42 Aug 23 10:21
- reversion by Moulton Aug 23 10:33
- Reversion by ConfuciusOrnis Aug 23 22:02
- Moulton makes the claim the NYT is guilty of not verifying its claims Aug 24 0:59
- Hrafn42 removes Moulton speculation and tortuous claims about the NYT Aug 24 01:12
- reverted again by Moulton Aug 24 01:26
- reverted by Hrafn42 Aug 24 01:57
- reversion by Moulton Aug 24 13:01
- undo Moulton's assignment of Picard to nonexistant category Aug 24 13:09
- reversion of text by Moulton Aug 24 14:28
- Blocked for 24 hours for WP:NPA Aug 24 18:36
- restoration of material about petition by Hrafn42 Aug 25 04:19
- application of 9 dispute tags by Moulton Aug 27 13:55
- removal of sourced material again by Moulton, and inclusion of nonconsensus tortious explanation: Aug 27 20:26
- revert back to nonconsensus version and again asserting that those appearing on the list signed the petition by Moulton Aug 30 00:46
At 18:35, 24 August 2007, Moulton was blocked for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks: However, this did not end the stream of personal attacks by a long shot, as demonstrates, for example, on August 30, 2007.
WP:POINT (discussed at) Also warned about WP:POINT at .
Evidence of trying to resolve this
Moulton was repeatedly counselled to calm down and not engage in edit warring and tendentious editing.
- User:Filll: User:Filll even bent over backwards, calling Moulton by telephone and talking to him for hours to try to help him understand the rules of WP and what would be required to reach his editing goals:
- User:ConfuciusOrnis:
- User:THF
- User:Hrafn42
- User:Avb
- User:Kenosis
- User:FeloniousMonk
- User:Dave souza
- User:Athaenara